Agenda item

Reinstatement and repair of former cricket club building and extension to convert to 2 bed disabled self-catering holiday accommodation with vehicular access.

The Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings 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 Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was reinstatement and repair of former cricket club building and extension to convert to 2 bed disabled self-catering holiday accommodation with vehicular access and was recommended for refusal.

The Planning Officer noted access was gained from Patterson Walk, along a 330 metre track, noting this did not appear to be in place from 2015 aerial photography, and that there was a former allotment site to the north east of the site.  It was added that the proposed holiday accommodation would include a new glass link and extension to the existing footprint and there was also proposed to be 2 parking spaces and hardstanding for outdoor seating.  Members noted the elevations and materials proposed, render and brick with reconstituted slate roof and timber doors and windows.  The Planning Officer noted that supporting information supplied by the Applicant referred to generic Visit County Durham website and not any specific information relating to this application site.  She added that Landscape Officers had noted there would be harm to visual amenity and that Environmental Health had asked for a condition that stipulated pre-commencement scheme to deal with contamination and a noise assessment.

The Planning Officer explained that in terms of the principle of development, the local plan policies were considered out-of-date and therefore the application would be considered in terms of NPPF Paragraph 11.  It was explained that Officers felt that positive aspects included: tourism benefits; providing accommodation specifically intended for disabled access; and brought a derelict site back into use with little impact on residential amenity and with no highways issues.  It was added that adverse impacts included: separation from the nearby village centre of Wheatley Hill; intrusion into the countryside; unremarkable design; impact of hardstanding in terms of the openness of the countryside; a lack of marketing strategy in relation to the letting of the holiday property which had a risk of a permanent build development remaining should the business not prove to be successful.  The Planning Officer noted therefore that with the negative impacts outweighing the positive aspects of the proposed development the application was recommended for refusal.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer and asked Mr L Thompson, the Applicant to speak in support of his application.

Mr L Thompson thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and explained that 10 years ago he had an accident and that upon leaving hospital he had sought a place to recuperate and rejuvenate on a family holiday in this country.  He added that he had been unable to find a suitable place with full facilities, only those offering access ramps and wider doors rather than all the necessary adaptations and facilities.  He noted that with assistance from a spinal injury charity he located a suitable location in Tenerife with adaptations and equipment such as hoists, wet rooms, and pressure relief mattresses.

Mr L Thompson noted upon his return to the this country he thought that it would be a good idea to have similar facilities available in our country and having the former cricket club site there was an opportunity to preserve some of the heritage of the village and also to provide a high quality facility for those with disabilities, providing the specialist needs in our local area.  He added that the countryside location and easy reach of both Durham City and the coast provided a good base, as well as having himself on site to give first hand advice and support in terms of the facilities and the local area.  He concluded by noting he wished to be able to provide a place for people to visit and help them to rebuild and rehabilitate.

The Chairman thanked Mr L Thompson and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Clark made reference to paragraph 47 of the report which referred to paragraph 83 of the NPPF and “promoting the rural economy” and noted that in being familiar with the area it was not so remote and detached from the village, and found the rationale of the Applicant in terms of providing such a specialist facility compelling.  She added that paragraph 65 of the report noted detriment to the countryside, with the proposals not enhancing the character of the area, she noted the nearby Heritage Centre would likely have photographs of the previous cricket pavilion to see how restoring the site would actually enhance the area.  Councillor J Clark added that paragraph 54 of the report set out the benefits in terms of the proposal, however, she noted in terms of access and bus stops, that this seemed irrelevant as those that would use the proposed accommodation would likely have specialised vehicles and access the site accordingly.  She concluded by noting that there were a great many attractions and amenities within a short drive of the location and that she would welcome such a proposal if it were put forward in her Electoral Division.

Councillor P Jopling noted she read the report and had been surprised when she reached the recommendation for refusal.  She added that the county needed this type of business and she felt it would be viable.  Councillor P Jopling noted that the proposed building was far better than the derelict buildings current on site and that the access track likely existed in some form for a longer time.

Councillor O Temple noted he had been struck by the attractiveness of the location when attending the site earlier in the day.  He added he felt the design picked up on the old buildings and purpose and that this was good.  He explained that he could not see how the proposals would damage visual amenity and that NPPF paragraph 13, part 11 in terms of previous used land would help support any proposals in terms of the approval of the application.  Councillor O Temple noted the reference to the saved Local Plan Policies being out-of-date, though he felt they would have helped support the application and he felt in terms of the spirit of the application he would be minded to support the application.

Councillor J Robinson noted in his local area there was a proliferation of hairdressing salons and when he asked at the planning stage in terms of whether so many could be supported and remain viable the advice given was that the viability was not a planning concern it was for the individual business to consider.  He noted that paragraph 65 of the report referred to viability and asked why this was a consideration contrary to previous advice given to him.  He concluded noting he had visited the site previously and felt that such a specialist provision would be unique and valuable.

The Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie noted it was felt the planning report was fair and balanced, highlighting both benefits and negative impacts of the proposals within the application.  He noted that in terms of the specific business, it had been noted that while the VCD Tourism Plan highlighted a lack of disabled facilities, there was no specific evidence as regards this application site. 

He added the report had highlighted that the site was relatively isolated and, in the event of the proposed business use not being successful, any fall back to residential development would have been resisted in terms of visual intrusion and detriment to the openness of the countryside.  He noted that the previous development in terms of colliery housing in the nearby area had long since disappeared.  He added that on balance Officers felt the benefits of the scheme were outweighed by the dis-benefits and therefore the recommendation was for refusal.  He concluded by noting that in terms of a new business a better case for the development in the countryside should have been made.

Councillor P Jopling noted she was bemused in terms of viability and business plans, noting in many cases such business plans were highly commercially sensitive.  She moved that the application be approved.

Councillor I Jewell asked for clarification on the distance to the main road from the application site.  The Chairman noted the site was approximately 300 metres from the main road and asked if the Applicant would speak in terms of the viability aspect. 

Mr L Thompson noted a business proposal had been developed and that a customer base did exist, with information having been supplied and that also the local Parish Council supported the scheme.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the letters in support were generic letters in terms of the principle, rather than being specific to the application site or specific to the proposals as set out.

The Solicitor - Planning And Development, Neil Carter reminded Members of the NPPF paragraph 11 balance test, with the specifics in relation to this application being set out at paragraph 46 of the report.  He added that should Members of the Committee feel that the benefits of the development significantly and demonstrably outweighed the dis-benefits, they would need to provide further information on how they came to this conclusion.

Councillor P Jopling noted that the proposals represented a niche product and that the proposals represented a vast improvement on the current state of the site.

Councillor J Clark noted she seconded the proposal for approval of the application, and while acknowledging the report was very balanced, she felt it was the duty of the Committee to look at each application and that in this case it provided a new and unique offer for disabled people and that it could also be supported in terms of paragraph 83 of the NPPF in terms of adding to the prosperity of rural economy.

The Solicitor - Planning And Development noted that should Members be minded to approve the application, it would be necessary for delegated authority to be given to the relevant Officers, in consultation with the Chairman, to formulate the necessaryr suite of conditions to be imposed.  Members agreed in terms of the suggested delegation, and upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to a suite of conditions delegated to the Head of Planning and Assets in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee.