Agenda item

Demolition of agricultural building and construction of 7no. holiday let units with associated car parking and landscaping.

The Senior Planning Officer, Paul Hopper, 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 application was for the demolition of agricultural building and construction of 7no. holiday let units with associated car parking and landscaping and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

The Senior Planning Officer referred Members to the location plan and aerial photograph and noted the application site was within the Old Cassop Conservation Area and an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV).  He noted the predominantly rural setting with the application site framed by farmland and a cluster of residential dwellings at Old Cassop.  He explained access to the village was taken by a single width lane from the west by the A688 and the north by the A181.

 

The Committee were shown a number of site photographs showing the site and the site in context, with the Senior Planning Officer noting the public right of way which crossed the site, and the relationship with the nearest residential building and wider surrounding area.  The Senior Planning Officer referred to further photographs showing the access to the site, the road leading towards Silent Bank, the A181 and also the main route through Old Cassop, a single width lane.

 

The Senior Planning Officer referred to the proposed site layout plan and noted the proposed holiday lets would be conversions that would broadly occupy the footprint of the existing building, set around a central courtyard. 

 

He noted access would utilise the existing arrangement with the unclassified road to the west, car parking would be provided to the south of the buildings and soft landscaping would be provided to the north of the site with a native species hedgerow around the site and some additional tree planting.  He noted two trees would be lost to the development, however, replacement planting was proposed.

 

The Senior Planning Officer referred to the proposed layout and elevations of the holiday lets.  He highlighted the Committee report should have contained a condition that required a submission and agreement of privacy glass to the balcony shown, to provide extra privacy for users of the unit and the nearest adjacent property.  Members were asked to note the mix of materials proposed and referred to a 3D visualisation provided by the applicant, though the Senior Planning Officer noted elements of the landscaping that were included would take time to be as established as represented within the visualisation.

 

In respect of consultee responses, the Senior Planning Officer noted the Highways Authority noted no objections subject to conditions ensuring new passing places, upgrades to existing passing places and the creation of a prohibited right turn onto the A181.  He added that the report had not included a condition relating to a request from the Highways Authority for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for no entry via the western access from the A181 and referred Members to photographs highlighting the proposed TRO. 

He noted Northumbrian Water had not commented on the application and the Council’s Drainage and Coastal Protection Section had confirmed no consultation was required. 

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted representations had been received from Cassop-cum-Quarrington Parish Council objecting to the application citing concerns regarding the suitability of the development for the location and highway safety.  He noted the Environment Agency had not commented on the application.

 

In reference to internal and statutory consultee responses, the Senior Planning Officer noted Design and Conservation had no objections to the application, noting the development would have a positive impact upon the Old Cassop Conservation Area.  He noted the Landscape Section and Arborist had no objections to the application.  He explained that the Public Rights of Way Team had no objection to the application, however, had noted that the Council would only maintain the surface of the public right of way to the standard necessary for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.  The Senior Planning Officer noted no objections from the Contaminated Land Section, Environmental Health Officer and Ecology Team subject to conditions.

 

It was noted that the Campaign for the Protection for Rural England (CPRE) had objected to the application citing concerns regarding highways safety and the impact upon visual amenity and the Old Cassop Conservation Area.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted a number of objections to the application had been received, with 12 letters of objection and representations from the three Local Members for the Electoral Division with the concerns raised including: unacceptable impact on highway safety from increased traffic, noting the narrow single lane nature of the unclassified road; the adverse impact upon the public right of way; adverse impact upon residential amenity; impact upon the conservation area; the area being unsuitable for development of that type; the development did not promote Healthy Communities; adverse impact on local wildlife and biodiversity; the impact on the balance of the existing community from transient visitors; and concerns over how the remaining land would be farmed.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in terms of the principle of development, Policy 8 of the CDP provided a policy framework in support of new visitor accommodation where it met stated criteria, broadly in accord with national policy as outlined within the report.  He noted Policy 8 required new visitor accommodation in the countryside to meet an identified need, albeit being an extension to an existing facility, and that it respected the character of the countryside and demonstrated clear opportunities to make the location more sustainable. 

In terms of need, the Senior Planning Officer noted the application had received basic support from Visit County Durham.  He added that in terms of maximising opportunities to make the site sustainable, there was a large provision of cycle storage for visitors and noted links to the cycle network to the south of the site.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the development would result in additional movements on the surrounding road network and the application was accompanied by a Highway Statement.  He noted that proposed mitigation in the form of the passing places to be constructed and existing passing places to be upgraded as well as the arrangements in relation to the junction with the A181.  He noted those measures could be secured via conditions and that the Highways Authority were satisfied they would mitigate any adverse impact of the development in highway safety terms. 

 

In respect of the impact upon the public right of way in was noted that whilst the development would introduce vehicles to part of the route, that was the case when the site was in agricultural use.  The Senior Planning Officer noted concerns had been raised that the proposals would be a breach of Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act, however, colleagues from the Highways Section and Public Rights of Way Team both noting that would not be the case. 

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in terms of the impact on the Conservation Area and AHLV, the application was subject to pre-application advice and proposals were reflective of the comments from the Council’s Landscape and Design and Conservation sections.

 

He added the Design and Conservation Officer considered that the development would have a beneficial impact on the Conservation Area through the removal of the agricultural buildings and replacement with what was considered to be a sensitive and redevelopment of the site.  It was explained that any landscape and visual impact upon the AHLV could be mitigated through an appropriately designed landscape scheme, secured through condition.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the development would introduce seven holiday units in a rural location and would have some impact in terms of increased noise, with a noise management plan having been submitted as part of the development, reviewed by Officers from Environmental Health.  He added that the development had sought to mitigate any impacts through its design, with details as listed in the report in terms of further mitigation how the site would be managed and control over external areas within the development, with Officers from Environmental Health being comfortable subject to conditions.  It was reiterated there would be a condition requiring the submission and details of the privacy glass. 

The Committee were informed that in terms of all other issues, the impact of the development could be mitigated through conditions as detailed in the report.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the application was considered acceptable in principle and one which could be satisfactory accommodated by reasons of size, scale mass, layout and appearance and in accordance

with Policies 8, 10, 21, 26, 29, 31 and 41 of the CDP.  He added that the development was considered to meet the requirements of paragraphs 193 and 197 of the NPPF and Policy 44 of the CDP and Section 72 of the

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as it would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

 

He noted that whilst the concerns of residents and Local Councillors had been considered as part of the proposal, it was felt, on the basis of consultation responses and consideration of the application that they were not considered to be sufficient to justify refusal of the application and any issues or any impact could be mitigated through condition.  The Senior Planning Officer referred Members to a slide setting out the proposed additional conditions relating to the TRO and privacy glass as discussed, which had been agreed in principle with the applicant.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Local Members, Councillors J Blakey, S Dunn and M McKeon to speak in objection to the application.

 

Councillor J Blakey thanked the Chair and Committee and explained she would wish the Committee to vote against the application because of the impact it would have on residents.  She added that the historical hamlet should be preserved at all costs, with there already being traffic issues in the area.  She noted there were no footpaths for pedestrians or provision in terms of bridleways or for cyclists.  She noted the application was against national policy in respect of building in the countryside and she felt that there had not been any thought to the design with it not appearing to fit with the existing buildings.

 

Councillor J Blakey noted there was no investment into the local

community and noted the passing points were not maintained by the County Council, it was by the residents themselves.  She noted incidents with accidents with delivery wagons leaving the road, as it was a single track.  She added that the location was not sustainable, with the nearest shop being four miles away.  She explained there was nothing at all to support the area through what was being developed, with the only enhancement being for the developer and with nothing for the existing residents.

 

Councillor J Blakey referred to the citing of Policy 44 by Councillor P Taylor in the previous application and noted that she felt similarly that the current application did not enhance the area, adding that conservation was not just about Durham City.  She added that accidents on the A181, because of the speed of the traffic along that particular section usually resulted in a fatality and she concluded by reiterating she would ask Committee to refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor J Blakey and asked Councillor S Dunn to speak in relation to the application, noting he had accompanying slides and a video as part of his presentation.

 

Councillor S Dunn thanked the Chair and Committee and talked Members through a brief video demonstrating the roads and routes relating to the application, including use of passing places, the context of the width of the roads, access points and visibility issues, the route through the village and access on to and from the A181.

 

Councillor S Dunn referred to paragraphs within the report, setting out his responses on a slide for the Committee, noting he felt the development brough virtually no benefits for the hamlet of Old Cassop and that the only acceptable remediation would be for demolition of the unsightly barns and restoration of the countryside.  He added he felt the development did not conserve the historic environment or any historically valuable buildings and represented unacceptable growth that would inevitably become permanent housing.  He noted that while there was a need for the type of visitor accommodation proposed, the location in Old Cassop was not suitable and the application did not make Old Cassop any more sustainable.  Councillor S Dunn noted that he felt the conditions relating to the installation and upgrading of passing places would be circumvented and that the additional traffic from the development could not be safely accommodated even with the enhanced passing places.  He asked the Committee that the application be refused.

 

Councillor S Dunn concluded by quoting an objection from a local resident who had stated: “Old Cassop will be changed forever and out of the 25 households, 12 will be owned by the applicant.  Is this to become his own personal hamlet?  This will give him more leverage for a slew of future applications which will surely follow.  Old Cassop will no longer be valued historically as one of the few remaining agricultural hamlets but as holiday park with no amenities and a treacherous road running through its heart”.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor S Dunn and asked Councillor M McKeon to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor M McKeon explained that Old Cassop was a lovely, small agrarian community with a big problem that affected many long established rural communities.  She noted that the problem was the hamlet was a nightmare to get to, with two roads into the village one from the A181, a fast moving road, and the other from Red Briar Bank the road between Quarrington Hill and the Bowburn bypass.  She explained she was a Governor at the school located at Quarrington Hill and noted that there were lots of conversations as regards the drive to the school and at what times that route would be an appropriate route to use, given it was very narrow, steep, had poor visibility and with it being frequently covered in leaves and detritus it was treacherous in winter.

 

She noted the roads to the village were themselves narrow, single track and enclosed by ancient hedgerows and there were already frequent issues with traffic on the road, in particular between Red Briar Bank and the hamlet, with the A181 being virtually impassable during winter.  She added there were ongoing issues in terms of fly-tipping with items including ball-bearings and others items that were dangerous to motorists. 

 

Councillor M McKeon noted that the roads were such that one needed to know the area well to be able to drive along it safely and explained that visitors to a holiday home, using the home as a base to explore the area, would be travelling back and forth along unfamiliar roads, increasing the pressure on roads that were already not fit for purpose.  She added there were no bus stops near the village, no footpaths and therefore to get in or out of the hamlet private car use was required.  She noted the hamlet lacked all amenities, from plumbing to shops and pubs and explained the Council had already recognised the problem 5 years ago when planning permission was sought on the same property by a company of which the current applicant was a Director.  Councillor M McKeon noted that proposed development was for the conversion of the existing barns to new residential use.  She noted that the Highways Department made comments about the road between Old Cassop and the A181 that “intensification of use of the Y-junction would  

create considerable concern for safe movement of traffic on the A181

which is already subject to road safety concerns”.  She explained that   Officers then noted a previous fatality on the site and the unsuitability of the location due to the aforementioned lack of local amenities.  She noted that permission was eventually given with an explicit condition that the developer installed a network of passing places on the road between the Bowburn bypass and Old Cassop.  She noted the Council agreed the plans for the passing places in 2016 and building commenced, however, the passing places did not materialise, and residents noted that only recently had works been undertaken.

 

 

Councillor M McKeon noted that in terms of the current application, Officers were minded to approve the application providing the applicant upgraded five existing passing places on the road to the Bowburn bypass and create two new ones close to the junction.  She noted a feeling on déjà vu as reassurance was given that the outcome could be controlled by condition, however, as a near identical condition had been given to a near identical approval for the same applicant five years ago the wording of the condition did not protect the village for several years with residents having lived with the consequences.  She noted that the current application was of more concern to her as a Local Member than the application from five years ago as the previous application was for dwellings and the current application for holidays lets implied a higher volume of traffic, more travelling and drivers who did not know the area.  She added that even with the inclusion of more passing places the road would remain too dangerous for seven holiday lets’ worth of tourists to use on a regular basis.  Councillor M McKeon explained that even with the TRO, the concerns in terms of the road to the Bowburn bypass would remain and the displaced traffic from the TRO would have to move to the other road.  She concluded by noting she hoped the Committee would recognise the unsuitability of the location for holiday lets and deny permission.

 

The Chair thanked the Local Members and asked Officers to respond to the issues raised.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted issues raised in terms of the sustainability of the location, and noted sustainability was referred to within Policy 8, Part 1, subsection (f) where visitor accommodation in the countryside was required to demonstrate clear opportunities to make its location more sustainable.  He reminded Members of reference within his presentation of access to the wider public rights of way network to the south of the site and that was weighed in the balance in consideration of the development, demonstrating broad accordance with that policy.

 

In reference to the footage provided by Councillor S Dunn, he noted it spoke for itself and he would only note that the manoeuvre in terms of returning back onto the unclassified road from the A181 would be prohibited through the TRO.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that in reference to the removal of the buildings being the best scenario in terms of improving the conservation area, he felt that it was unlikely any works would be undertaken in that regard without associated redevelopment of the site.  He noted the scheme delivered that and referred to the comments of the Design and Conservation Officer in terms of the beneficial impact he felt the development would have on the Conservation Area. 

He noted that in reference to the 2015 application for the conversion of an agricultural building to the south of the site, that application had been granted consent subject to a condition that required an upgrade and installation of passing places along the western leg of the unclassified road and noted an enforcement case relating to the occupation of that site, the condition being tied to the occupation of the property.  He noted that subsequently works were undertaken in December 2019, with enforcement noting that the requirements of those conditions having been met.  He noted the current application was to be judged on its own merits and there was a mitigation proposed, to be secured through condition, to overcome issues, based upon the advice of he Highways Authority and it was worded such that no development on the application site could take place until the passing places were installed and were usable.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development reiterated the points made by the Senior Planning Officer in terms of the enforcement history associated with the previous development and that the issues with passing places linked to that previous development were not directly relevant to the application being considered by Members.  He noted the Committee needed to operate on the basis that any conditions that would be imposed if the application were to be approved would be complied with and if there was an issue of non-compliance in the future that would be a separate matter for the relevant enforcement team.

 

The Chair thanked the Officers and asked local resident, Ms Dawn Watson-Love to speak in objection to the application.

 

Ms D Watson-Love thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted she represented the residents of Old Cassop, eight of whom objected to the application.  She noted she wished to speak to the Councillors of the Committee as she imagined one of the reasons they would have become a Councillor was to represent the communities in which they lived and to try and make a difference to the lives of people within County Durham.  She explained that the decision the Committee would make today would have an impact upon everyone living in Old Cassop and added that it was not a decision she had taken lightly in terms of speaking to Committee, something which she noted was outside of her comfort zone.

 

Ms D Watson-Love noted she was not a NIMBY (not in my backyard), and added that if the development had been smaller, did not have as much associated traffic, or was in a different location she felt she probably would not have objected.  She added that in relation to the other development within Old Cassop she had supported those developments.  She added that she took her children to school along the road Councillor S Dunn had shown in his video and felt she was putting her and her children’s lives at risk with the current level of traffic. 

She noted that in winter there were numerous accidents and over the last two winters there had been multiple vehicles piled up, vans had over-turned, her husband’s car had been written off in addition to the incidents as described by Councillors J Blakey and S Dunn. 

 

Ms D Watson-Love noted there were no speed restrictions and asked Members to recall the images of the road passing through the hamlet and to understand that speeds of vehicle could be 60, 70 or 80 mph, as the route was an established rat-run, and that had been a contributory factor to the accidents that occurred.

 

Ms D Watson-Love noted the references made to the passing places and whether they should or should not have been installed and added that in her opinion the passing places did not deal with root cause the accidents.  She noted a meeting as regards the issues, prior to lockdown, where the cause was determined as being drivers not knowing the roads and understanding the risks and too many vehicles using the road.  She added the road was more of a farm track and on a previous journey from the A688 she had been delayed for 25 minutes due to sheep on the road.

 

She explained that therefore the TRO to prevent traffic entering from the A181 was going to have such an impact and she felt it should not be part of a planning condition and should have been open to consultation.

 

Ms D Watson-Love noted that in terms of the scale of the development there would be seven holiday cottages with up to six bedrooms, 15 car parking spaces, though with potential for up to 22 vehicles, and therefore one could imagine the amount of traffic on the road and, as Local Members had mentioned, there were no services within the hamlet, there was no pub, no ability to purchase a pint of milk or a newspaper, those requiring a journey by car.  She added that there was nothing within the application that supported Policy 21 in terms of sustainable development, noting there was nothing sustainable in terms of the level of traffic from the scheme and felt it was a fatality waiting to happen.  She noted that it may be acceptable for a Highways Consultant sitting 300 miles away in Milton Keynes on their computer to look at the application and think the paths and passing places were acceptable and would reduce the risks, however, she felt that nobody in their right mind would approve or support the application if they had to drive along those roads every day like residents.

 

Ms D Watson-Love noted in terms of Policy 21 there was no evidence in relation to the level of traffic from the development that could be safely accommodated and added she felt there was nothing within the application or the Committee report that demonstrated the level of traffic could be accommodated. 

She explained she felt the application contravened Policy 10 which referred to development in the countryside which stated that it would not be acceptable if there was prejudice to highway safety.  She noted Policy 8 stated that holiday accommodation would only be permitted if it was appropriate in scale and character, and pointed out that visitors would outnumber residents, 49 to 45.  She noted there were issues in terms of the public right of way, with 15 car parking spaces that could be accessed along the right of way, another accident waiting to happen.  Ms D Watson-Love noted there would be vehicles coming in and out at peak departure and arrival times.

 

Ms D Watson-Love concluded by thanking the Committee and asking them to note that it was not an exaggeration to say that the decision they made today could save lives or further endanger them and to use common sense.  She noted the underlying issue was, for all the mention of sustainability within policy, that there was nothing sustainable about the scheme in terms of the scale of the development, the amount of traffic, there were no services and the development would cause absolute misery every day for the local residents.  She noted there had been no benefits to the community from the 2016 application and were none within the current application either.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Dawn Watson-Love and noted Councillor S Dunn wish to make a point of clarification.

 

Councillor S Dunn noted for clarity that on his return journey in his video he had turned right off the A181 and that right turn would still be allowed, the proposed TRO would prevent turning from the next right hand turning along at the Y-junction, the one after the one he had used.

 

The Chair noted the comments and asked Mr Joe Ridgeon, agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

Mr J Ridgeon thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak in support of the application.

 

He explained that Old Cassop was ideally located to support the visitor attractions of County Durham, with fantastic views of Durham Cathedral and being just off the new Northern Saints walking route.  He added that with easy access to the City and the Coast it was an ideal location for the development of luxury holiday accommodation.  He noted a lot of time and effort had gone into ensuring that the right scheme was before Members, in compliance with Policy 8, and he and the applicant were grateful for the support from Visit County Durham during the development of the scheme. He added that the holiday properties would bring people to the area, helping support the nearby tourism and hospitality businesses, which have taken such a hit recently.

Mr J Ridgeon explained that the diversification project came about due to the current buildings becoming surplus to requirements and given the site's location, there was an ideal opportunity to invest in alternative development to support the wider farm business, helping cushion any future changes to the UK farming economy.

 

Mr J Ridgeon noted that the high quality design had been integral to the proposals, which had been landscape and heritage-led from the outset to ensure they enhanced the area.  He added that the proposal used both the current built form and the historic plan form to inform and inspire the scheme, ensuring that the proposal reflects the existing historic context in terms of scale, massing and materials.  He welcomed the comments from the Design and Conservation Officer that the proposals would result in a beneficial impact and net gain to the character, appearance and significance of Old Cassop, fully in compliance with Policy 44.  During the application additional landscaping has been proposed as part of the scheme to address comments from the Landscape Officer.

 

Mr J Ridgeon explained, as set out in the application, the properties would be responsibly managed to minimise any adverse impacts on local residents.  He added that, when booking, guests would be advised on the best route to the property and be provided with 'Welcome packs' which would set out expectations for the guests in terms of respecting nearby residents.  He noted the packs would also provide an opportunity to let guests know about local attractions, facilities and services in the area.

 

Mr J Ridgeon noted the concerns from neighbouring residents in relation to potential highway impacts had been addressed from the outset, with additional passing places proposed as part of the application.  He added that the type of use would have the least amount of impact during peak hours, with holiday makers unlikely to be using the road during morning and evening rush hours and school no runs.  He explained that the applicant proposed that the additional passing places were in place prior to commencement

of development, which could be controlled by appropriately worded condition.

 

Mr J Ridgeon noted that, in addition, the Council had requested a further highway improvement to be delivered as part of this application which were detailed in the Highway Statement dated 21 October and the TRO as discussed.  He noted this was welcomed, with the requested change to the road priority benefiting existing residents and future visitors.

 

Mr J Ridgeon explained those road improvements, which would otherwise not be delivered, will mitigate both the impact of the holiday accommodation and addressed some of the existing issues that residents experienced, which Members had heard about.

 

Mr J Ridgeon noted that there was huge demand for more holiday accommodation in the County.  He added tourism was an important part of the local economy, and the development would be a benefit because of the increased spending averages of visitors staying overnight.  He noted the scheme was very high quality and would result in enhancement to the Conservation Area.

 

Mr J Ridgeon explained the development therefore accorded with local policy, and specifically Policy 8 and Policy 44, and national policy and would help support the Visitor Economy in County Durham, including a beneficial impact on the local area through new jobs and increased spending and delivery of highway improvements.

 

Mr J Ridgeon concluded by respectfully requesting that Members approve the application, subject to the proposed planning conditions, adding he was more than happy to answer any questions Members may have.

 

The Chair thanked Mr J Ridgeon and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor P Taylor noted the contrast between the last two speakers’ comments, the resident and the applicant’s agent.  He added he felt it was a case of what looked good on paper being totally different to the reality of a situation.  He thanked the Local Members for their insight and noted, when looking at the report, he had felt that the application had looked to be a good idea.  He noted he travelled along the A181 regularly, however, he had not travelled along the unclassified road adding he felt if Members had been undertaking site visits, it would have proven impossible to get to the site.  He noted that if he was going down that road in the snow, he would probably abandon his car.  He added he was horrified by the state of the roads as shown in the video footage, though the village had appeared wonderful.  He noted he felt the application was not sustainable and explained he took the contrary view to everything that was said by the applicant’s agent and when mentioning welcome packs for users of the cottages there was no mention of local people whatsoever.  He noted his opinion on paper was completely different to the reality and thanked all the speakers for opening his eyes.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted he was not against development in the countryside, however, he felt it was important to listen to residents and what Local Members had said and from their comments it was clear it was in the wrong place.  He noted that he felt the application should be refused as it was wrong for the area and that it was an accident waiting to happen.  He noted the proposal in another location may not have been a problem, however, the access issues and the amount of development meant it was not right for Old Cassop or its residents.

 

The Chair asked the Principal Highway Development Management Engineer, Dave Smith to comment on the issues raised.

 

The Principal Highway Development Management Engineer noted the comments from speakers and Members in relation to the traffic to the proposed development and added he wished to give some perspective in terms of what sort of traffic the development would generate as a holiday destination.  He explained that Junction 61 of the A1(M) would likely be the area where most traffic would come from in terms of tourists, coming via the A688 and then along the unclassified road where the inter-visible passing places would be provided.  He explained that seven inter-visible passing places would be provided along that route which would benefit the residents and all road users.  He added that, in terms of the passing places agreed, they would be to full road construction standards to allow vehicles to pass each other, 5.5 metres wide and 18 metres in length. He noted that ultimately, they would benefit everyone in that location in terms of highway safety, being a positive impact making it safer for existing residents.

 

The Principal Highway Development Management Engineer noted there were few houses at Old Cassop and there were very low volumes of traffic on the unclassified road both from the A181 and the A688 adding those volumes represented light traffic.  He referred to the video provided by Councillor S Dunn and noted there was nothing unusual in terms of the video, they were typical country roads similar to those throughout the county and added that people should drive to the conditions and give way to people.

 

In reference to the TRO, the Principal Highway Development Management Engineer he noted the right turn manoeuvres that would be omitted and referred to anti-skid barrier systems and bollards that had been installed in the past and had improved highway safety at that location.  He noted that there had been a reduction in accidents in the area, and in checking the accident statistics relating to the unclassified highway, there had been only two accidents recorded over the last five years, which did not give rise to a significant highway safety impact, given how the development would operate in terms of low trip distribution from the development.

 

The Principal Highway Development Management Engineer noted in summary that there was low volume of traffic, journeys outside of peak traffic times, mitigation in terms of the A181 junction improvement and the upgraded and additional inter-visible passing places and he added that, taking all those elements together, it could not be claimed that there was a significant highways impact.  He added that he felt an Inspector would not refuse the application on highways grounds.

 

Councillor A Laing noted she agreed with the comments made by Councillor P Taylor and congratulated the three Local Members for their work on behalf of residents.

 

Councillor P Taylor noted the comments of the Principal Highway Development Management Engineer and thanked him for the information, however, he felt he did not understand the points made and would find it difficult to make a decision without seeing the site and routes, or a presentation by Officers similar to that made by Councillor S Dunn.  He understood the statement was professional and well thought out, however, he felt he did not understand it.  He noted he was struggling to come to a considered decision and reiterated that similar evidence to that of Councillor S Dunn, provided by Officers, would have been useful.

 

The Chair asked as regards the TRO and whether it was conditional on the application being approved, whether the additional passing places were also conditional on approval, and whether anything else would be done in terms of the existing passing places.

 

The Principal Highway Development Management Engineer noted in respect of the passing place provision, that had been looked at by the Highways Department, with the Senior Planning Officer having a copy of the plan setting out the provision of the additional passing places and where existing places would be upgraded, he noted seven in total to allow safe operation of the unclassified road to the development site.  He noted he understood from the Senior Planning Officer that the condition was pre-commencement in terms of the adoption standard passing places.  In respect of the TRO, he noted that there had been dialogue with the Police and the Council’s Traffic Department in respect of banning the right turn, though he would need to check with Highways colleagues to understand at what stage that was at.  He added that before the proposed development would commence the Council would want to ensure that through a Grampian condition that would be put in place to alleviate those manoeuvres.  He noted that a lot of the trips would be from the A1(M), the Bowburn direction and he felt that traffic would come from the west to the development and therefore he felt that mitigation, secured on top of the passing places overall was such that it would be difficult to argue that there was severe highways impact as there was low traffic volumes and low accident statistics along the unclassified lane.  He reiterated that the Authority would want the passing places and TRO to be in place and secured before the development was ready for holiday visitors as residents would be affected if those measures were not put in place.  He explained that it would be to ensure they were all built to the correct highways standards and carried out through the proper processes in terms of the TRO stopping the right turn manoeuvre.

 

The Chair asked if the Senior Planning Officer would clarify as regards the TRO, whether it was tied to the approval of the development or otherwise.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reiterated the point made by the Principal Highway Development Management Engineer that the provision of the passing places was solely tied to the proposed development, without the development there was no mechanism in terms of them being provided.  In respect of the TRO, he noted this had been brought forward through condition as part of the application and he was not aware of any application being made outside of the planning process.

 

The Chair asked whether the TRO would only go ahead if the application was approved, even with the Police noting the junction was dangerous.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that was the case at present.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development brought to the Chair’s attention a point of order, with some present at the meeting making use of the chat function to comment.  The Chair thanked the Solicitor – Planning and Development and noted the chat function was solely for use in terms of Members of the Committee requesting to speak.

 

Councillor A Laing noted that when the Principal Highway Development Management Engineer had responded to questions in terms of accidents and noted two over the last five years, the local resident Ms D Watson-Love appeared to disagree and therefore residents may know of more incidents.  The Chair noted the meeting had moved on to the Members’ debate and asked Councillor Robinson to speak next.

 

Councillor J Robinson noted the application had highlighted the value of site visits and explained he would wish to propose refusal of the application on the basis of highways safety, having found the statement of the local resident compelling, and also on the effect on residents, with potentially more people visiting than residents.  He added that therefore on highway safety and impact upon the residents he would move refusal.

 

Councillor B Coult asked, if the establishment was approved, would it be open all year round or would it operate seasonally.  The Senior Planning Officer noted there were no restrictions, only that it was not occupied as a sole residence.

 

Councillor A Laing noted she would second the refusal proposal made by Councillor J Robinson.

 

 

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted he would advise Members against a refusal based on highways safety, adding that while clearly the decision rested with Members, he wished to make Members aware of the risks that might be faced upon appeal given the professional Officer’s view in terms of the impacts on highway safety.  He noted the technical advice given by the Principal Highway Development Management Engineer in that the highway in question would be lightly trafficked, there would not be a significant additional number of vehicle movements associated with the development and in any event, the mitigation by way of the proposed TRO and improvements to existing and additional passing places would sufficiently address any of those impacts that might arise.  He reminded Members that highway safety issues were quite technical, and it was often quite difficult to sustain a refusal reason on highway safety which was contrary to the professional Officer’s advice.  He reiterated that Members could make the decision, however, he wished for Members to be aware that there could be significant difficulty sustaining that reason for refusal on appeal.

 

Councillor J Robinson noted he still felt he believed the information given by the local resident when she spoke and he felt that there would be impact upon the residents of the community, the fact there were a limited number of people in that community and that it would affect their whole lifestyle and he believed the application should be turned down.  He noted that Councillor J Blakey had referred to Councillor P Taylor’s comments on the previous application relating to Policy 44 of the CDP, and he noted a similar situation in Old Cassop to that in Durham City and that Policy 44 would therefore apply.

 

Councillor P Taylor noted the statement within the report from the Highways Section and a really good presentation from Principal Highway Development Management Engineer, however, the still did not understand the situation, not being able to see the situation physically.  He noted a plan setting out the location of the passing places had been mentioned by the Officer, adding he had not seen that plan.  He added that he would respond to the Solicitor – Planning and Development in that he would go against what Highways had said as he did not understand the case being made.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted he would advise Councillor P Taylor that if he did not feel he understood the advice from the technical Officer or that he felt he may need further advise to come to a reasonable view it may be that the best course of action would be to defer for any additional information to be forthcoming.  He added he would be concerned if Members were making a decision whilst saying they did not fully understand some of the highways issues.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the plan referred to in respect of the passing places had formed part of the application pack that was available to view online, and he asked the Chair if it would be useful to share that on screen with the Committee.  The Chair agreed that would be helpful.  The Senior Planning Officer referred Members to a plan setting out the proposed additional passing places and upgraded passing places and noted all would be constructed in line with the standards as outlined by the Principal Highway Development Management Engineer.

 

The Chair asked how the passing places would look in terms of construction. 

 

The Principal Highway Development Management Engineer explained that the passing places would be constructed with a surface of tarmac, a base course and a subgrade, that being full road construction makeup and would widen those sections of the lane out to 5.5 metres, with one and three tapers at each end.  He added there would be signs indicating “passing place”, the overall widths would be to highway standards and they would also be positively drained.  He added that the passing places would improve safe two-way traffic flow along the road which only had light traffic movements of just over 100 vehicles.

 

The Chair asked if it would only be the two new passing places or whether all would be upgraded.  The Principal Highway Development Management Engineer noted that all seven would be upgraded to that standard, 18 metres in length, to allow for a tractor and trailer to pass each other.

 

The Chair noted the motion for refusal that had been put by Councillor J Robinson, seconded by Councillor A Laing and asked the Solicitor – Planning and Development to take the vote.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development asked if Councillor P Taylor could clarify if he felt he now had sufficient information to come to a view on the application.  Councillor P Taylor noted he did, with the additional information provided by Officers, noting that it just remained now the significant change to the lives and amenity and history of the village.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

 

 

 

1.  The development would result in an increase in vehicular traffic on the surrounding road network which could not be safely accommodated and would therefore have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety both for vehicular users and pedestrians contrary to the aims of policy 21 of the County Durham Plan and paragraph 108 of the NPPF.

    

2. By reason of its scale, size and massing the development would result in harm to the significance of Old Cassop Conservation Area that would not be outweighed by public benefits contrary to the aims of policy 44 of the County Durham Plan and paragraph 196 of the NPPF. Consequently, the development is also considered to be contrary to the aims of Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in that it fails to preserve the Character and Appearance of Old Cassop Conservation Area.