Agenda item

Siting of 10 holiday lodges

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an

application for the siting of 10 holiday lodges on land to the North West of the 68 Café, Toft Hill (for copy see file of minutes).

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site

location plan, aerial photographs and photographs of the site.

Councillor Hugill, Local Member, addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal.  He considered that should the application be approved it would be a blot on the landscape, which was visible to anyone travelling on the A68.  He queried whether sufficient sanitation could be provided in that area as there was no electricity, water supply, or sewerage in the area. 

Furthermore there was a well established badger set which would be disturbed.  With regards to the sustainability of the site, there was a reliance on vehicular traffic as there were no nearby shops, no footpaths from the site.  This would increase traffic flow through the village, which was particularly bad at school drop off and pick up times and furthermore the access to the site was from a road which he did not consider safe due to the speed which vehicles were travelling.

Councillor H Smith, Local Member, objected to the proposed application.  Whenver a planning application in the Evenwood Division went to Planning Committee she generally attended to speak and represent the views of local residents.  There had been 12 public comments on the planning website, all of which objected to the application and none in support.  Other residents had expressed that they wanted to comment on the application, but were afraid to.

The site was on a field outside Toft Hill beside the C33 road running between Toft Hill and Hamsterley. The A68 road was very close by and separated from the site by a small field to the north.  The field was in an elevated position and had commanding views of the surrounding countryside and down into Weardale.   It was a very beautiful location of high landscape value, very rural in its feel, and it would be seriously adversely affected by the propsed development. 

She quoted the Landscape Officer who had confirmed that the introduction of structures, tracks, cars and other paraphernalia was entirely at odds with the character and was visually detrimental not only to the field itself but to the wider landscape in whose context it is seen.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England had objected to the application.

The site was currently grazing land and she frequently saw a number of different species of wild animals and birds in the area, yet no information was provided with the application to show how effects on wildlife could be mitigated.

The field had been the site of mining activity and included one mine shaft and one adit within the field boundary, however there had been no mining survey submitted and therefore the Coal Authority had fundamental concern to object.

The Environment Agency had also objected due to insufficient information to demonstrate that the risks of water pollution by foul water could be safely managed.  The Drainage and Coastal protection department had objected because insufficient information had been given with regards to surface water drainage and the risk of flooding in surrounding areas.  The Highways Department had confirmed that insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate safe access to and from the site.

She questioned the use of the site for holidaymakers.  The plans are for wooden lodges and a play area and picnic site but there was no reference to a shop or any other amenities on site in the application.  There had been no reference to any on-site supervision or site manager and local residents had concerns about the potential for anti-social behaviour. 

Toft Hill had very little services, the closest shops were several km away in Bishop Auckland, Evenwood or Cockfield.  Without a car it would be very difficult for the visitors to get to any local attractions as the bus service was limited, with no Sunday or Bank Holiday service, and the closest bus stop several hundred metres away.  

There was a local pub in Toft Hill but it would be dangerous for visitors to walk to it – the C33 had a speed limit of 60mph and no pavements or no street lighting until the edge of  the Toft Hill settlement boundary was reached. 

The increase in car traffic through a village that already suffered from significant traffic problems was one of the main objections local people had identified.  The applicant had sent a letter to Councillor Smith which stated that his clients would mostly be visitors from abroad and would be met at Newcastle Airport or Darlington station and brought to the site by minibus and therefore a car would not be needed, but he had not explained how they would access services.

The holidaymakers would be only a small field away from the A68 which carried a lot of traffic, with many HGVs grinding their way up the hill in low gear towards Toft Hill. The Environmental Health officer had pointed out that wooden chalets were less effective at screening noise than masonry buildings and that the noise impact on the site was likely to be intrusive.

The local economy of Etherley and Toft Hill would benefit very little from this development, and the detrimental effects on the landscape far outweighed any possible benefits – it would be an inappropriate development in a wholly unsuitable location and she asked the committee to accept the officers’ recommendation and refuse it.

The South and West Planning Team Leader confirmed that the reliance on cars to access services was expected with regards to tourism as they tended to be sited in more rural areas.

Mr Ketley, Planning Consulant, spoke on behalf of the Applicant and confirmed that his client had delivered a number of high quality schemes in the North East prior to this application, such as Direct Worktops in Shildon and Darlington Football Club.  The proposal was for a small scheme holiday site, 10 log cabins of a very high quality, making a significant contribution to the visitor economy.  He confirmed that many of the concerns raised could be addressed by conditions, should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

He referred to a the County Durham Visitor Accommodation Future Study, a report commissioned by the Council in 2012 and the most up to date evidence based document available to the Authority.  It identified that there was not currently a large number of holiday lodges in the region and identified that holiday lodges and log cabins were an expanding market and should be supported, especially in the North Pennines and Durham Dales area.  The scheme complied with the study as well as the Teesdale Local Plan and the NPPF in supporting rural tourism accommodation.

Mr Reynolds addressed the Committee and made reference to the developments which he had been involved in prior to the application and stated that he had never experienced the problems encountered with this application.

With regards to the noise and disturbance outlined in the report, he considered that the site was cited much further from the roadside than other businesses with planning permission.  Mr Reynolds was not satisfied with the process, felt it had been a conspiracy from the beginning and the most difficult planning application he had been involved with, despite the large scale of his previous applications.  He also confirmed that he had been advised by the Planning Officer three weeks prior to the meeting, that the application would be refused.

The Chair confirmed that the Planning Officer had to make a judgment, hence the recommendation in the report, but assured Mr Reynolds that the Committee made the final decision based on all of the evidence presented to them.

With regards to the inconsistency noted by Mr Reynolds, the Planning Officer confirmed that the nearby caravan park was exclusive to Caravan Club members and had been certified through a separate process, and Café 68 was of a more substantial construction.

In response to a question from Councillor Atkinson, Mr Ketley confirmed the the log cabins would be spacious, and the structure of high quality timber, with a pitched roof.

Councillor Jewell commented on the lack of sufficient information and queried whether the Applicant had been given the opportunity to submit further detail.  The Planning Officer confirmed that he had written to the Applicant on 26 June 2019 to request further information, however nothing had been submitted, although the Planning Officer had been involved in further discussions.

In response to a question from Councillor Maitland, Mr Ketley confirmed that there was a mains water supply on site and the electricity was in the process of being secured.

Councillor Huntington was concerned that the Coal Authority had not been satisfied as having a mine shaft on the site was potentially dangerous for children holidaying in nearby chalets.

Mr Ketley confirmed that the site was located in an area which had been classified high risk due to former mine workings and it was recognised that further information would need to be submitted to the Coal Authority to confirm that the site was suitable for development.  The groundwork for this proposal, given that it was a log cabin scheme, would require light foundations and would not interfere with previous mine workings and there had been no stabilisation issues in the past, however should the Committee be minded to approve the application, they could add a condition with regards to the submission of a ground stability report to be submitted and agreed with the Coal Authority prior to the commencement of works.

Councillor Tinsley could see why the location would be appropriate to build holiday homes, the site had spectacular views however as well as views off site, there were also views into the site and he agreed with Officers and Local Members that this was a particular problem due to the elevation. 

The site was in an isolated location and although there was a local pub a few hundred yards away, there was no access to local shops and services and no pedestrian route off the site. 

Councillor Tinsley appreciated the comments with regards to the quality of the scheme, but he would dispute this as in order to determine the quality of the scheme, the information had to be provided to support this and it was clear from Councillor Jewells question that the application did not include satisfactory information even though the Applicant had been given ample time to provide it. 

A scheme which has significant impact on biodiversity was by definition not a high quality scheme, and Councillor Tinsley challenged the conclusion that the design was of a high quality.  A mono pitch roof was not in his view, not something associated with a high quality log cabin – he would personally describe the design as more like a domestic shed than a log cabin.

In summary he concluded that the proposal had a very significant landscape impact, it was in an isolated location, had questionable access to services, and there were issues with regards to the design of the scheme.  Councillor Tinsley proposed a motion to refuse the application as outlined in the Planning Officers report, seconded by Councillor Jopling.

Councillor Richardson confirmed that the reasons to grant this application were not there and as a local, he was aware that it was once a motorcycle scrambling track, then it had been subjected to opencast mineworking’s.  He begrudged the loss of agricultural land and could not support the application in its current form.

Resolved

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons outlined in the report.