Agenda item

Change of use of land for holiday accommodation, engineering operations to create 20 bases for holiday lodges, access and car parking, erection of four permanent holiday lodges and landscaping.

The Team Leader – Central and East, Sarah Eldridge gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Team Leader – Central and East advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for change of use of land for holiday accommodation, engineering operations to create 20 bases for holiday lodges, access and car parking, erection of four permanent holiday lodges and landscapingand was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a s106 agreement.

 

The Team Leader – Central and East noted the proposed holiday lodges fell under the definition of a “caravan” as set out at the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1986.

 

She added that the application was by Seaham Hall Ltd, and was to complement the existing hotel and spa offer.  Members were referred to aerial photos and plans and asked to note the heritage assets in the area: Seaham Hall – Grade II listed; the Church of Saint Mary the Virgin (Grade I listed); and the 19^th Century rectory (Grade II listed).  The Team Leader – Central and East referred the Committee to the main entrance to Seaham Hall and the north-eastern entrance, used by service and emergency vehicles.  Members were referred to paragraph 129 of the report and asked to note it should read north east, not west of the site.

 

The Team Leader – Central and East noted there had been representations from Historic England, though it was noted that there would be less than substantial harm from the development and Natural England had raised no objections to the application.  It was added that Visit County Durham had noted their support for the application and the Council’s Regeneration and Economic Development Officers were also in support of the application.

 

Members noted no objections from the Highways Section, subject to the improvements to the visibility splay at the western entrance being conditioned.  It was noted there were no objections from the Archaeology Section, subject to a programme of archaeological work being submitted alongside a written scheme of investigation.  The Team Leader – Central and East explained there had been no objections from Ecology Officers and the Public Rights of Way Section had offered no objections to the application and no objections to a proposed diversion of the right of way located to the north east of the site, subject to the usual public consultation process.  Members were informed that Landscape and Design Officers had noted some harm, though less than substantial.

 

The Team Leader – Central and East noted that there were a number of public representations, 9 letters of objection and a letter from the local Easington MP, Graeme Morris.  Members noted a summary was included within the report, with the main issues including: impact on heritage assets; the benefits not outweighing the harm of development; issues with access, blocking of the public right of way; drainage issues; and impact upon amenity.

 

The Committee were reminded that the hotel was well established and that the principle for accommodation for tourism was acceptable.  It was added that the level of harm of the development had been assessed as less than substantial and Officers felt that the benefits included: more visitor nights, 25 full-time equivalent jobs at Seaham Hall and construction jobs; and adding to the vitality of the existing offer.

 

The Team Leader – Central and East noted that the Highways Section had noted the access could be improved which was in accord with the NPPF and policies 30 and 36 of the saved District of Easington Local Plan.  It was added that the increase in tourist numbers was mitigated by alternative green space and a financial contribution via the s106 legal agreement, in accord with the NPPF and policy 18 of the saved District of Easington Local Plan.  She reminded the Committee of the conditions in terms of archaeological surveys and investigations on site.

 

The Team Leader – Central and East noted that the Applicant had suggested amendments to conditions 6, 10 and 16 in terms of minor investigation/preparation works, Officers had no concerns as regards these and therefore the recommendation was as per the report subject to those amendments.

 

The Chairman thanked the Team Leader – Central and East and the Case Officer and asked Mrs L Chapman to address the Committee, speaking in objection to the application.

 

Mrs L Chapman noted that she was speaking on behalf her mother who had lived for 30 years just metres from the proposed development site.  She noted that there had been a number of developments in the past which had been carried out sympathetically in regards to the nearby heritage assets which had been in place for thousands of years. 

 

 

Mrs L Chapman noted that there had not been sufficient public consultation up to this point and it appeared that discussions had been taken for years, however, residents had only found out around Christmas time.  She added there would be impact upon the irreplaceable heritage assets and loss of amenity to her mother.

 

Mrs L Chapman noted in terms of the insufficient public consultation that in terms of the local event, residents had only 2 days’ notice and only 44 residents out of the 22,000 in Seaham had attended, not a substantial number.  She added that she did not think a few hours was sufficient to allow discussions as regards a development that would impact upon sites of national significance, St. Mary’s Church being one of the 20 oldest churches in the country, older than Durham Cathedral.  Mrs L Chapman noted that the loss of historic setting and added she was not sure that the proposed economic benefits of and additional £890,000 to £2.1million was correct.  She added that the NPPF and saved District of Easington Local Plan, at Policy 24, noted no development that had an adverse impact on character of the area would be permitted, unless there were substantial benefits.  Mrs L Chapman noted that she felt the creation of around 30 jobs did not provide a greater benefit than the loss that would be caused by the development.  Mrs L Chapman explained that there would be loss of amenity for her mother, with the proposed development meaning that 24 caravans would be in front of her mother’s property. 

The Chairman thanked Mrs L Chapman and asked Mrs C Hindmarsh to address the Committee, speaking in objection to the application.

 

Mrs C Hindmarsh noted that she felt that the application should have been 2 separate applications as some aspects represented housing and some being caravans.  She added she felt that it was having the application by the back door.  Mrs C Hindmarsh noted that she felt the issue had not been publicised and that the report was deeply prejudiced and the process not democratic.  She added there had not been reference to the work of the former County Archaeologist, Niall Hammond in 1998/99 and also noted that elements relating to the NPPF, for example that relating to Part 4 of the NPPF and transport.  She noted that it was unrealistic that anyone would travel to the site other than by car, the proposed car park size suggesting this to be the case.

 

Mrs C Hindmarsh noted a number of assertions were being made and she added they should not be accepted if they were not evidenced.  She referred to an application for a caravan site at the nearby clifftops in 2012 that had been turned down, noting no benefit.  She explained that there was also an Anglo-Saxon graveyard, 650-750 AD, at the site and that iron hinge chest burials had been discovered at the site, noting that this suggested a high status ecclesiastical site.  Mrs C Hindmarsh reiterated that St. Mary’s Church was one of the oldest churches in the country, with 18 of the oldest 23 being in the North of England. 

 

Mrs C Hindmarsh added that she felt the number of new jobs was exaggerated, much of the construction would be undertaken off-site, and the units would not require maintenance for a number of years, or indeed decades and therefore it was not encouraging jobs in the way suggested by Government.  She noted that most people over 60 years old believed the “flower field” belonged to the medieval village.

 

The Chairman thanked C Hindmarsh, adding that the consideration of the application by Committee was not undemocratic, the recommendation and report having been prepared by professional Planning Officers with the Elected Members of the Planning Committee to make the decision.   

 

The Chairman asked Mr R Grieve, Managing Director, Seaham Hall and Mr J Taylor, agent for the applicant to speak in support of the application.

 

Mr R Grieve explained that Seaham Hall, since 2000, was a 5 star boutique hotel and spa and had an excellent regional, national and international reputation.  He added that since 2011 there had been significant investment to create a business model that was sustainable for the future and explained the proposed development would secure around 150 full and part-time jobs, predominately from the local area.  Mr R Grieve added that the development would help to increase revenue for local businesses in the area.

 

Mr R Grieve added that the development would benefit local attractions and would added to the continued success of Seaham Hall, adding a diversity to the offer and benefits also in terms of length of stay. 

He added that in the wider context of uncertainty arising from terrorism and Brexit, there had been an increase in “staycations” and therefore the proposals would help ensure a flexibility for the business and provide a quality environment.

 

Mr J Taylor thanked the Committee and noted that he felt the Officer’s report was well balanced and noted there had been no objections from the statutory or internal consultees.  He added that the Council’s Archaeological Section had noted no objections, subject to the scheme of site investigations, and the Highway Section had offered no objections, subject to improvements in terms of the visibility splay at the access.  In reference to the public consultation event, Mr J Taylor noted that 45 attendees was a fair representation in terms of the number of people that attend such events.

 

Mr J Taylor noted that the proposed lodges would complement the other tourism offers and in terms of the “flower field”, the proposals would formalise the existing footpath.  He concluded by noting that through thoughtful design, the development would help improve the offer to the area and Seaham Hall and asked that the Committee support their Officers’ recommendation for approval.

 

The Chairman thanked the speakers for their comments and asked the Team Leader – Central and East to respond to issues raised.

 

The Team Leader – Central and East in terms of loss of amenity to The Lodge, there were proposed access improvement and a change such that staff would access via the west access as opposed to the north east access.  It was added that loss of a view was not a material planning concern.  She added that pre-application public consultation was undertaken and at the application stage, the requisite statutory consultation was undertaken, with direct contact and notices in the press and on site.  In respect of the public right of way, the realignment would improve use of the Grade 1 Listed Church and keep people away from the landscaping. 

The Team Leader – Central and East noted she would ask colleagues from the Archaeology Section and Visit County Durham to speak as regards issues within their areas.

 

The Principal Archaeologist, Dr D Mason noted that the medieval cemetery had required archaeological evaluation using geophysics and trial trenching and that there had been no archaeological features or deposits had been noted, he having personally inspected the trenches.  It was added that the reasonable approach was the requirement for a written programme of investigation works by the Local Authority.

 

The Destination Project Manager, Visit County Durham, C Wilson explained that the Seaham and the Heritage Coast had attracted around 3.2 million visitors in 2016, tourism being worth over £109 million - £20.18 average day visitor spend - £154.50 average spend per trip of overnight visitors and with 1,592 employed within the visitor economy.  He concluded by noting that the type of development as proposed would help to develop the area over the next 5-10 years.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officers and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments.

Councillor G Bleasdale noted she was a Local Member for the Seaham Electoral Division and was horrified that the application was at Committee.  She added she felt there should have been residents’ meeting in terms of this “crown jewel”.  Councillor G Bleasdale added that the Church and surrounding area was very old and that she recalled walks along the area with her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, adding it was very sad if it became a commercial area.  She added that the access was on to a very dangerous road and she felt that the impact upon Seaham Hall and the listed Church would be terrible.

 

Councillor J Blakey noted concern as regards what could be lost once development began, asking would it be possible or preferable to defer until archaeological works had been undertaken.  The Principal Archaeologist noted the information within the report was up-to-date and that the further investigations would be undertaken before development started.

 

Councillor S Iveson noted some confusion in terms of lodges and caravans.  The Team Leader – Central and East explained that 20 “lodges” were being considered in terms of the 1960 Act, and were for change of use, with conditions to be placed upon their use.  She added that 4 units were 2-storey buildings and these would be considered as dwellinghouses via a full planning application, with conditions for future control.  Councillor J Blakey asked if dwellinghouses was there a requirement to live at those property for 12 months of the year or otherwise.  The Team Leader – Central and East noted there was not, as they were not principal places of residence and therefore not lived in permanently.

 

Councillor I Jewell noted that there had recently been many improvements at Seaham, however, further development required additional tourism assets and with appropriate accommodation as needs grow.  He noted that paragraph 59 of the report highlighted information in terms of mitigation in relation to the public right of way.  He proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer’s report.

The Team Leader – Central and East noted that as the development formed part of the hotel site, it was not expected that there would be further applications in terms of shops and laundry facilities.

 

Councillor O Temple asked as regards site ownership, the tenure of the lodges and the terms of any leasehold in respect of unrestricted use, or whether it was by booking via the hotel itself.  He added he took some comfort in the improved access arrangements, and reiterated that he felt it would be in the hotel’s best interest in terms of reputation to control the operations.  The Chairman allowed Mr R Grieve to answer the question.  Mr R Grieve noted that Councillor O Temple was 100% correct, all booking would be via Seaham Hall as would all maintenance.  Councillor O Temple noted he seconded Councillor I Jewell.

 

Councillor J Clark noted that she understood the emotions in respect of the important heritage assets, however, she had been satisfied that the application was not for a “caravan site” as such.  She added that St. Mary’s Church was a relatively unknown gem and she understood that the Church struggled in terms of volunteers and suggested that those that may choose to use such lodges may be those interested in such work.  Councillor J Clark noted many positives associated with the application and added her support.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee, subject to the amendments as noted by the Team Leader – Central and East.

 

 

Councillor J Clark left the meeting at 2.45pm

and took no part in the following item.