Agenda item

Construction of 24 no. luxury Holiday Lodges, Reception Building and Associated Landscaping

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer which sought planning permission for the construction of 24 no. luxury holiday lodges, reception building and associated landscaping (for copy see file of minutes).

G Blakey, Principal Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph of the site, site photographs, proposed site plan and designs of the proposed lodges. The Committee had visited the site the previous day.

Councillor Batey addressed the Committee as a Parish Councillor on behalf of Urpeth Parish. Urpeth Parish was already subject to significant highways issues due to events and functions held at Beamish Museum and Beamish Hall and the road and lane infrastructure were not appropriate for the growing traffic. Access to Coppy Lane and the proposed development was likely to be through Urpeth parish area and would directly impact on residents of the parish. Beamish community was an area that was regularly gridlocked when events took place at Beamish Museum and Beamish Hall and access to the coast-to-coast cycle route at Eden Place carpark attracted further visitors to the area. There was a distinct lack of sustainable transport links, no public footpaths, or cycle lane, and as a result the proposed development would rely solely on the use of private vehicles and would be contradictory to the plan to make County Durham net zero by 2045. Power outages were often experienced in the area due to the rurality of the location and position of the cabling and questioned how power could supply the proposed development and associated electrical vehicle charging points and possible hot tubs when the supply was struggling to meet existing demand. Large vehicles using the lane to access the proposed development during construction phase were raised as a concern as were supermarket shopping deliveries for those staying on site and vehicles associated with fuel supply, removal of waste and refuse collection. The Council Plan 2022-2026 and the County Durham Vision 2035 contained strands relating to the Environment, highlighting the need to reduce traffic to improve air quality and questioned how the development worked to support, address, and meet those targets when there was no sustainable transport, footpaths, or bus service in place. Local economy would be difficult to support as access to the closest restaurant/pub would require guests to walk on a dangerous lane with no lighting or footpaths and therefore to support the local businesses, without impacting on safety, would require the use of a car. Whilst it was recognised it was good for County Durham to have this type of accommodation it had to be in a viable location. Councillor Batey urged the Committee to refuse the application due to unsafe access, inadequate road infrastructure and the economic and tourism benefit not outweighing harm.

Councillor Binney addressed the Committee as local member of the Tanfield division and confirmed that he was in objection to the application. He advised that the planning application met significant opposition from the local community and the wider area due to the sheer scale of the application and the impact this would have on the character of Beamish Burn Conservation area. The lane that would be used to access the proposed development was narrow and contained no footpaths or streetlighting and no public transport serviced the area proving the development was unsustainable. As a member of the Area Planning Committee (North) he was astounded that there was a limit on the size of the bus that was used for the site visit the previous day and, in his opinion, demonstrated that the lane to access the development site was unsuitable. He expressed concern that lodges could overlook the homes of local residents and that the design of the lodges were not in keeping with the character of the landscape nor was the development in keeping with the scale of the local area which was contradictory to Part 2 and Part 3 of Policy 8 of the CDP. He raised further concerns regarding the increased traffic that would result from the proposed development. He believed the application did not meet all the requirements of Policy 6 and Policy 7 of the CDP and stressed it was important for Local Authorities to balance the economic benefit with the impact on the local area and residents. He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor Charlton addressed the Committee as local member of the Tanfield Division and thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak and thanked residents for attending the meeting for the second time. The level of consultation with residents given the scale of the proposed development and the location was disappointing. The development was not in keeping with the local area due to the proximity to ancient woodland and no consideration had been given to the ecological impact. The proposed site was currently green open space and was a haven for wildlife and bats. It was confusing how the proposed development was to support the local economy. A plan for a development within the Gateshead area had recently been approved and felt that two similar developments within close proximity were unnecessary. The report stated that the development would support local restaurants and shops, but no safe footpaths were available, and the lane was dangerous due to it being unlit and contained blind bends. A great deal of construction vehicles and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) would be required if the application was approved in addition to ongoing delivery vehicles travelling to the site. Significant costs associated with repairs to the bridge crossing Beamish Burn had already been made and additional vehicles regularly using the road would put further strain on the existing infrastructure. Mr Conroy, the Applicant, gave assurances early in the application process that hot tubs would be removed, and it was disappointing when advertisements for the lodges included information on hot tubs. The concept of the development was good, but the location was wrong, and Beamish Museum had not supported the application in any way. Councillor Charlton respectfully asked the Committee to refuse the application. 

Councillor Wood, before addressing the Committee, asked for two points of clarification from the planning officers.

Firstly, Councillor Wood asked for clarification on the size of the site that the Committee were required to determine. The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the site was 3.68 hectors as stated in the report and was for 24 no. lodges. Councillor Wood explained that although he was not a member of a planning committee, he had the required training and was aware that the Committee could only look at the application in front of them which stated 1.93 hectors and that was a material difference to the report.

Secondly, Councillor Wood referred to Paragraph 78 of the report where Kevan Jones, MP for North Durham was listed as ‘commenting on behalf of constituents who had contacted him to object to the proposal’. Councillor Wood asked why this was listed as a comment rather than an objection. The Principal Planning officer explained that the views of Kevan Jones were made clear in the report. Councillor Wood had a printed copy of the letter by Kevan Jones dated 20 August 2021 which clearly stated his objection to the application. The chair confirmed that this would be noted for the report. 

Councillor Wood proceeded to address the Committee as County Councillor on behalf of residents in the Pelton and Beamish division. As local member, he had serious concerns regarding how the application had been dealt with by the Local Authority and expressed concern with the report that was presented to the Committee. He had further concern regarding sustainability and the scale and impact of the proposal on the local area and upon the local highway network. The area had been registered as a conservation area since 1994 and he stated that the application was contradictory to Policy 29 of the County Durham Plan (CDP), particularly Part C and D. Although there was an indicative area for solar panels, any renewable energy generated would be far outweighed by the energy required to heat 24 hot tubs if they were to be installed. Double heighted living spaces would require heating and local wildlife would be impacted due to light pollution. The development would also impact on the local highway network, contradictory to Policy 8 of the CDP, and the proposed two storey, six-metre-high lodges would have a significant impact on the scale and character of the area. The residents had arranged for an independent assessment which was caried out by Northern Transport Planning Ltd and it highlighted the higher level of impact the development would have on the access lane. The assessment was dismissed in the report as a ‘note’. Residents had repeatedly requested a meeting with highway officers but to no avail and the local MP also raised this concern within his correspondence on 15 April 2022. Visitor accommodation as specified at Policy 8 of the CDP did not require an objection from highways to refuse the application. Although the report described the access as a by-way open to all traffic, the lane was unadopted, unlit, narrow, contained blind blends, was bordered by vegetation on each side, contained ditches and no footpaths were available. The car park at Beamish Museum had been used as a covid test centre during the pandemic and the army had taken steps to prevent access to the testing site via the lane on the grounds of highway safety. The proposed development was in an area of High Landscape Value and within a conservation area. The access lane was deemed unsuitable by Durham County Council for access to a picnic site and was unsuitable to walk to events held at Beamish Hall such as their annual firework display where pedestrian access has been refused. Councillor Wood understood that the application was finely balanced, but on balance he believed that additional traffic in an unsuitable and unsustainable location would have a significant and detrimental impact on highway safety for his residents, the public, and for those visiting the site. Councillor Wood respectfully asked the Committee to refuse the application.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that no correspondence or representation had been received from Beamish Museum.

Mr Baglee addressed the Committee on behalf of the Beamish Burn Residents Group. He stressed their passion for the Beamish Burn conservation area and highlighted that 222no. letters of objection had been submitted and advised that no attempt had been made to contact residents to discuss their concerns and that questions posted via the portal had been unanswered. He noted that addressing members of the Committee was the first opportunity they had been given to voice their concerns, but that there was limited time to do so. He noted that holiday accommodation was already available in the area and a new development with permitted planning was currently pending. He expressed great concern with drainage and advised that Beamish Hall had objected on these grounds and explained that water could lie stagnant. He noted that no discussions had taken place with the adjacent landowner about the application and expressed concern with the affect the development would have on bats, birds, and wildlife. He advised that economic benefits would be minimal as travel to all local businesses would require a private motor vehicle and pointed out that no shops were close to the development and guests were therefore likely to travel outside of County Durham for essential items. He noted that local business did not support the application and that all residents were concerned of the safety of the lane that accessed the site and could foresee tragic accidents. He stated that himself and the residents felt disappointed and let down by the planning process and felt disrespected that the professional report they submitted to the planning team had been recorded as a note. On behalf of the Beamish Burn Residents Group, he urged the Committee to reject the application.

Mr P Conroy, the Applicant addressed the Committee and advised that he was born and raised in Beamish and emphasised his passion for the area. He noted that planning began in Autumn 2019 and responses at that stage had been positive and has worked with planning officers since then to find solutions to the concerns that have been raised. He confirmed the development would be family friendly, would use renewable energy and clarified that hot tubs were no longer proposed. With regards to economic benefits, he advised that staying visitors contributed more than daily visitors.

Mr A Franklin, the Agent addressed the Committee and welcomed the support and approval of planning officers and thanked residents for working with them. He advised that there was a need for this type of accommodation and Beamish was a prime location due to the many nearby visitor attractions. He referred to Policy 8 Part 2c of the CDP and confirmed that the principle of development was acceptable. In terms of the concerns raised regarding highways, he noted that the report submitted by residents had been considered and explained that not all lodges would have two cars and not all lodges would be occupied throughout the year and therefore increase to traffic would be minimal and that trips would generally be made by guests outside of peak hours. He confirmed that additional parking was planned for visitors and noted that no accidents had been recorded on the lane. He advised that there would be no impact on residential amenity and that lodges were heavily screened. He noted that Environmental Health had not objected to the development and advised that a management document detailing park rules would be issued to guests. The application site was not within flood zones two or three as identified by the Environment Agency and that they had not raised any objection to the application in this regard. He explained that the proposal delivered on biodiversity net gain and confirmed that no trees would be removed. In summary, he stated that the application fully met the planning policy and the identified need for accommodation and requested the Committee to approve the application. 

In response to a question from Councillor Jopling, the Agent confirmed that there were no plans to sell any of the lodges privately.

Councillor McKeon, in supporting the data regarding trips associated with guests, questioned why 24 no. lodges were proposed if there was no expectation to be fully booked throughout the year. The Applicant envisaged approximately 80% occupancy but advised that even if occupancy was 100%, he would still not anticipate any issues with regards to highways.

Councillor Haney confirmed he had attended the site visit and noted that the location was secluded but that access to the site was a concern. He referred to the comment in the report regarding Visit County Durham and asked whether the need for visitor accommodation was specific to this area or for County Durham as a whole. He thanked residents for the materials they had submitted including the transport assessment and for all the hard work they had put in.

In response to a question from Councillor Watson who asked if the land was greenbelt, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that the land was not greenbelt but that it was in a conservation area associated with Beamish Valley. In response to the question from Councillor Haney regarding Visit County Durham, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the need for accommodation was for County Durham as a whole.

D Smith, Principal DM Engineer referred to the transport assessment and confirmed that all information received had been assessed by Highways and explained that daily trips taken by guests would be outside of peak hours. He advised that following analysis of the data it was confirmed that there were no accident trends or collisions recorded and he explained the site visibility splays. Although accepting there would be additional vehicle movements on the road, he noted that he had no concerns with access to the site or road safety and confirmed that the development met parking requirements. In terms of larger vehicles that used the road, he noted that Beamish Hall would have daily deliveries and although passing a larger vehicle could happen, no issues were foreseen. He confirmed that the road was a byway by virtue but was designed and maintained to highway standards.

Councillor Batey raised a point of order stressing that as an elected member, she was aware that statistical evidence for accidents did not indicate that accidents had not happened and noted that photographic evidence showing accidents that had occurred had been provided. The Principal DM Engineer advised that although the consultant for Beamish Burn Residents Group had submitted accident data for the previous 22 years, only five years of data had been considered in line with the recommendations from the Department for Transport.

Councillor Jopling commented that it was difficult to measure traffic movements with the proposed development and expressed concern regarding the drainage strategy for foul water. In terms of visitor accommodation, she felt the need had not been proven and that sufficient visitor accommodation existed within the area and believed that if lodges were sold privately, they could be treated as a home and occupied for up to 10 months of the year.  She noted that the benefits did not outweigh the harm and confirmed that she did not support the application.

Councillor Stelling asked how the development would contribute to a low carbon future as stated at Policy 29 of the CDP given there were no safe paths for guests to walk to the nearby facilities and a private motor vehicle would therefore be necessary to help the local economy. The Applicant took the view that as a lot of visitor attractions were in the vicinity and the current lack of visitor accommodation, the development would reduce the need for visitors to travel long distances. Councillor Stelling emphasised that safety was still a major concern.

Councillor Haney noted that assumptions had been made regarding traffic only coming from the A693 but he believed this was not the case. He highlighted residents had submitted a considerable amount of data regarding highways and felt this had not been given any weight.

Further to Councillor Binney’s comments regarding the development not meeting the requirements of the CDP, Councillor Shaw asked for this to be clarified. The Principal Planning Officer explained the planning balance as detailed in the report clarifying that planning officers felt the economic benefit outweighed the harm but confirmed that Members must draw their own conclusions regarding balance.

Councillor McKeon noted that although hot tubs were no longer planned by the developer, they were originally permitted, and asked if the applicant would be required to submit an additional application for hot tubs should the Committee approve the application. In terms of trips, she asked whether the figures contained in the report included trips associated with food deliveries as this would make a material difference. Councillor McKeon stated that although the lodges were designed for a certain number of guests, in her opinion there was always potential for additional guests and asked if additional guests were included in the data regarding trips. She referred to the comment from the applicant regarding the expected occupancy of 80% but stated that the Committee had to base their decision on 24 no. lodges. She pointed out that when Beamish Museum was used a test site during the COVID-19 pandemic, the army had advised people not to use the lane as they deemed it unsafe. She stressed there were no sustainable transport links for guests to use and moved the application to be refused on the grounds of highways.

Councillor Earley felt it was difficult to equate positive tourism with the impact on the environment but confirmed that he took the view that the application was in an area of conservation and High Landscape Value which were solid planning grounds and that this outweighed any need for visitor accommodation. He also felt that the access road was unsafe. Councillor Earley confirmed that he seconded the motion for the application to be refused.

Councillor Watson stated that there were no areas on the lane to allow traffic to pass and felt that as the land was greenfield, the development was an intrusion into the countryside and believed the application conflicted with policies 21, 39, and 44 of the CDP and he supported the refusal of the application on these grounds.

C Cuskin, Senior Lawyer Regulatory and Enforcement advised the Committee that the motion by Councillor McKeon to refuse the application on highways may not withstand an appeal due to highways information being based on empirical data. She explained that harm to an area of High Landscape Value and conservation highlighted by Councillor Earley were stronger grounds to refuse the application.

Councillor Earley moved that the application be refused on the grounds of harm to an area of High Landscape Value and conservation. This was seconded by Councillor Watson.

Councillor Shaw noted that the recent city of culture bid by Durham included information on four million more overnight stays and considering this felt that new developments for visitor accommodation was necessary. He noted that to grow as a County it was important to approve new developments and explained that he was aware of many developments within the Lake District that had similar restrictive access roads and felt that the lane could be accommodated accordingly to allow vehicles to pass safely. Councillor Haney whilst respecting the view of Councillor Shaw noted that the Committee could not enforce regulations on the access road.

Councillor Jopling believed that the need for accommodation had not been proven within the area and that the application should be rejected as the development would have a significant impact on the local residents.

Councillor Stelling stressed the development site was unsafe.

Councillor McKeon believed that the location was not appropriate due to the lack of infrastructure and the impact it would have on residents. In responding to Councillor Shaws comment regarding the Lake District, Councillor McKeon accepted that there were many developments in that area that were similar but explained that they had caused uproar in the communities. Councillor McKeon confirmed she would welcome new developments in County Durham but on sites that were safe and had sustainable transport links.

The Senior Lawyer clarified that a motion had been received from Councillor Earley on the grounds of harm to an area of High Landscape Value contradictory to Policy 39 of the CDP and harm to an area of conservation contradictory to Policy 44 of the CDP. The Senior Lawyer asked if the additional reasons of sustainability and the reason of need as raised by Members were to be included in the motion as these were also reasonable grounds to refuse the application. Councillor Earley confirmed that he accepted the additional reasons to be included in his motion to refuse the application.

Councillor Watson agreed but expressed that he would also like highways to be included in the motion and believed there was a case to defend this at appeal.

The Senior Lawyer referred to Policy 21b of the CDP and reiterated that the Council could be at risk of costs if the application progressed to appeal, but that Members were free to make their own decisions regarding this.

In response to a comment made by Councillor Shaw, the Senior Lawyer clarified that the wording of the policy was identified visitor need and although there may be an overall need for accommodation, that was separate to the argument that was put forward.

Councillor Earley noted that although he appreciated the dilemma with encouraging tourism as raised by Councillor Shaw, he accepted the advice from the Senior Lawyer and would proceed with the motion excluding the grounds of highways. Councillor Watson agreed.

In Summary, the Chair thanked the officers and the residents for all their hard work and confirmed that a motion to refuse the application had been moved by Councillor Earley and seconded by Councillor Watson.

Resolved

That the application be REFUSED.

Councillors J Blakey, K Earley and P Jopling left the meeting.