Agenda item

Construction of 22no. holiday lodges with associated infrastructure and landscaping.

Consideration was given to the report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the construction of 22no. holiday lodges with associated infrastructure and landscaping at Brancepeth Manor Farm, Brandon Lane, West Brandon (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

The local Members Councillors D Bell, A Bonner and J Chaplow each addressed the Committee against the application.

Councillor Bell appreciated that this was a difficult decision for the Committee. Referring to Policy V8 of the Local Plan which related to tourism (camping, caravans and chalets), he considered that in certain areas the proposed development would be appropriate but not at Brancepeth Manor Farm.

He noted that access to the development would be via Brandon Lane with passing places but the increase in traffic generated would have an impact on the highways network of nearby villages which already experienced traffic problems. If visitors used a satnav they would be directed along Wolsingham Road, past residents’ properties and would reach a locked gate.

Vehicular movements and visitors would create noise particularly in the summer months which could cause problems for the local residents, especially if there was no permanent on-site supervision. A further concern was that there had been no details submitted in relation to foul waste disposal. The development would have visual and landscape impact; the Landscape Officer had concluded that the proposals would have some significant adverse landscape and visual effects.

Councillor A Bonner concurred with the views of Councillor Bell, particularly in relation to highway issues. The proposed development would exacerbate the problems currently experienced on the surrounding highway network. The Member also expressed concern about site security and the safety of children around the lake. She noted the condition which required details of site management to be submitted and asked if 24 hour on-site supervision was proposed. The Member questioned the reported figures that the development would bring £1.58m to the local economy given that this was a very isolated location. She was unable to envisage how the local economy would benefit. The Planning Officer in his report had advised that a scheme had been submitted showing additional planting along the north and west boundaries of the site, however it would take around 10-12 years for newly planted trees to mature.

Councillor J Chaplow agreed with the views of the other local Members and expressed concern about safety around the lake. She believed that children would want to cross the lake to reach the island in the middle. The site was surrounded by farmland with sheep, and visitors to the site may bring dogs. The Member also considered that large emergency vehicles and service vehicles would have difficulty accessing the site via the narrow Brandon Lane. The site was in a beautiful part of the countryside but was too far from local shops and a car would be essential. There was no entertainment on site and she felt that holiday makers would want more than what was offered. Councillor Chaplow appreciated what the scheme proposed but felt that it was in the wrong location.

J Hadland of Savilles addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents. Their concerns included the adverse impact on neighbouring properties, increase in traffic, the impact of noise and the impact on the public highway. The application site was in a remote setting in open countryside.  The Landscape Section had concluded that the proposals would have some significant adverse landscape and visual effects, which residents fully supported. The proposals were contrary to Policies V8 and Q5 of the Local Plan. The NPPF supported sustainable development which supported economic growth. This was an isolated location which relied on car ownership. The Highways Authority considered that the site was in an unsustainable location.

Several properties had planning consent for conversion to residential dwellings less than 50 m away from the nearest lodges. This would have an adverse visual impact on their living arrangements and private amenity, also contrary to Policy V8. She continued that each of the 22 lodges would have 2 designated car parking spaces with visitor bays incorporated into the site. This would have an effect on the amenity of neighbouring properties, contrary to Policy T1. Access would be via unlit roads with a complete reliance on cars to travel to the site and for visits to other tourist areas.

The proposals would have an adverse impact on Public Byway 17. The increase in traffic would be incompatible, particularly as the byway was a single carriageway width surface track with grass verges. The proposals did not comply with Policy V8 which stated that the development should provide a satisfactory means of access and be adequately served by public transport.

J Hadland noted that there were proposals for a stile on the track between the lodge site and the neighbouring properties, and she asked if the gate would be permanently locked. She also asked if the applicant owned the Byway, which if this was the case should have been included in the boundary plan submitted.

The development would have significant noise implications. There was the potential for raised voices, music etc from the lodges which had been confirmed by the Noise Officer who had indicated that the main control to mitigate the risk of noise disturbance was through site management. Whilst noise could be managed there had been no guarantee given that the site would be supervised at all times. The proposed condition was not detailed enough to address this.

In conclusion, J Hadland stated that such a development should be in a sustainable location and any tourism benefits did not outweigh the adverse impact on local residents. 

Mr J Wyatt, on behalf of the applicant thanked Officers for the detailed presentation and endorsed the Officer’s recommendation for approval. The applicant had worked closely with Officers to address all concerns. The proposal was for the development of holiday lodges at the higher end of the holiday accommodation market. The development would meet demand identified by Tourism UK and the Durham Tourism Management Plan Committee, and would contribute to the local economy. On behalf of the applicants he asked the Committee to approve the application.

Members discussed the application and Councillor Clark expressed disappointment that the applicant had not consulted with residents prior to submitting the application but acknowledged that this was not a pre-requisite. The report referred to the potential for the creation of 29 jobs aside from construction work, and the Member asked what these were. Councillor Clark also asked if the damaged dry stone walls observed on the site visit would be repaired.

J Wyatt advised that jobs would be created directly through the employment of a manager, and for site maintenance and cleaning, and indirectly in the local area. He confirmed that the applicant intended to repair all walls as part of the development work.

Councillor Nicholson stated that he had been struck by the beauty of the site and by the aims of DCC to improve the wealth of the County through tourism. This presented an opportunity to allow people to come and stay in County Durham. He acknowledged the concerns made about the access but there were passing places proposed which was not an unusual arrangement and was common in other rural parts of the country. He also emphasised the importance of employing local people. The Member moved approval of the application.

Councillor Lethbridge, in concurring with Councillor Nicholson noted the beauty, solitude and tranquillity of the site. He had heard the Planning Officer’s comments with regard to the Landscape Section’s reservations about the disruption of the landscape views, and did not consider that the site would have any impact and would be adequately screened. He would not wish to see the tranquillity and solitude spoilt by lots of holiday makers but if the site was developed with sufficient taste and care then it would contribute to tourism in County Durham.

Councillor Moir referred to Policy V8 and the reference in that Policy to development being served by adequate infrastructure. The development was not served by public transport or a public footpath, and there were no shops nearby. The Member also asked about proposals for the disposal of foul waste.

The Senior Planning Officer accepted that the site was in an unsustainable location and there would be a reliance on cars for travel but the purpose of this holiday development was to provide isolation away from built up areas. Although further details were to be submitted with regard to foul drainage it was likely that disposal would be via a septic tank or treatment plant.

Councillor Freeman knew the landscape very well and found it difficult to believe that it would not be damaged. He agreed with the Landscape Section that the proposed development would have a detrimental visual impact on the surrounding area and down to Esh Winning, Ushaw Moor and Brancepeth.  There were already bushes and trees on the site and it could be a decade before the additional planting started to obscure the impact of the lodges. He was also concerned that the lodges may cease to be holiday homes and become permanent residences in the longer term. With regard to the highways matters raised Councillor Freeman was of the view that Wolsingham Road should be the preferred access as Brandon Lane was very poor.

Councillor Alan Bell’s initial feeling was that this was a good scheme and he agreed with Councillor Lethbridge that taste and care should be applied. Whilst he felt that such a scheme should be encouraged he had a number of queries/concerns. The Member considered that there should be screening between the residential properties and the lodges, and that the site management plan needed to be addressed. He asked if a warden would live on site to deal with any incidents of noise or rowdy behaviour and also if the lodges would be available to hire out.   He was concerned for the safety of children on site and felt that there needed to be safety measures put in place near the lake.  With regard to the siting of the lodges he hoped that the required separation distances had been met.

In response the Senior Planning Officer explained that the nearest lodges were well-screened by existing trees. A barn and listed building to the rear would have views of the lodges but loss of view was not a material planning consideration. Condition 7 required a site management plan to be submitted before any of the lodges were occupied. J Wyatt confirmed that a full time manager would be on site during office hours. Outside these times a contact number would be provided for both the occupiers of the lodges and the residents. The Manager who lived locally could be contacted at all times.

With regard to safety around the lake, the Senior Planning Officer advised that although this did not fall within planning legislation, details of safety measures could be requested as part of the site management plan.

J Wyatt advised that the aim of the scheme was for the lodges to be purchased by individuals but the owners could make them available for hire. Matters such as arrival and departure times, and change over days would be controlled in the Management Plan.

Having heard the responses to his questions, Councillor A Bell stated that whilst he was in favour of a scheme of this type there were issues that had not been fully addressed which meant that he was unable to support approval of the application. The Member referred to a similar application to allow cabins for hire which had been refused because it had been considered that owner-occupied cabins should not be expected to live alongside those which were hired out. He felt that the residents would find themselves living in a chalet park and the screening proposed by the applicant was not sufficient.

Councillor Lethbridge, having heard the proposals to improve Brandon Lane with passing places considered that access was not an issue. County Durham needed a variety of accommodation and he considered that the isolated location would not be a problem for those seeking solitude.     

In response to a question from Councillor Davinson about staff parking on site, the Member was advised that the finished scheme would have sufficient parking provision integrated in the layout, with 2 spaces per lodge and separate visitor bays. Parking arrangements would be informal and the Highways Authority had offered no objections to the proposed provision.

Councillor J Clark seconded Councillor Nicholson’s motion to approve the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.