Agenda item

Change of use of dwelling (Use Class C3) to spa facility (Use Class E(e) including removal of existing front door and installation of new entrance door to northern elevation.

The Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Morina (LM) 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 change of use of dwelling (Use Class C3) to spa facility (Use Class E(e)) including removal of existing front door and installation of new entrance door to northern elevation and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer (LM) and asked Councillor D Hall, Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor D Hall thanked the Chair and Committee and explained that he represented the Sherburn Division, which included High Pittington and the small hamlet of Hallgarth.  He noted Members would have had sight of his e-mail to the Committee and therefore he would give a summary of why he felt the application should be deferred to allow for consideration of a noise management plan for the proposed spa and the cumulative impact that would have when considering the proposals with the existing site.  He noted from residents that the noise worsened with seasonal events and that one nearby local resident suffered with dementia and another family nearby had a child with autism.  He explained that residents had reported that issues with noise were worse than last year, and added that the spa proposals would impact upon residential amenity as visitors and associated noise would be closer to residents.  Councillor D Hall noted that the applicant had promised a noise management plan, however, it had not come forward and added that he was aware a plan was drafted for the wider site including addition of holiday pods.  He emphasised that he felt it was essential that the noise management plan include the spa site and be enforced.  He noted that he did not want to stop the hotel, rather he wanted the hotel to be successful but not to the detriment and impact on the mental health of residents, their families and children.  He again asked that the Committee defer the application.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor D Hall and asked the Committee Services Officer to read out submissions by registered speakers who had been unable to attend the meeting.

 

The Committee Services Officer read out a statement from Simon and Elisa Berry, Local Residents in objection to the application.

 

“Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns over this planning application, and I’m sorry we cannot be there in person.

 

Contrary to what this statement may appear - we would really like the Hallgarth Manor Hotel to become commercially successful. Both myself and my wife grew up in Pittington and returned to the village 15 years ago. We have raised our sons in the Village and they both attended the local primary school. Ideally would like to see the Hallgarth Manor Hotel be a proud addition to a thriving Village.

 

Our specific concerns over this planning application are already documented. The reason for this statement is to put things into a personal context.

 

We have significant problems with the way that the Hallgarth Manor Hotel currently run their events, and specifically their disregard for the impact that their events have on their neighbours. This has led us to pursue a noise complaint with Durham council that is still ongoing. Over the Summer period it is common for them to run events 4 out of 7 days a week. These events commonly include live outside bands. When inside, the events go on until 12pm, including Sundays. The specific details of this, and the result of a noise survey, are all documented in our noise complaint.

 

The frustrating thing for us is that there is a solution, because when they do run their events respectfully, we have no issue with them. However, this is not often. They do not believe they need to engage, and do not accept that they are doing anything incorrect or harmful to our lives.

 

There is also a specific concern for us. Our son is autistic and has a learning disability. He is sensitive to bass sounds and on a good day will only get agitated when he hears the music, but on a bad day he will self harm significantly. Both Durham council and the Hallgarth Management have seen photos of the wounds caused by noise from the events, when they are run irresponsibility. Both myself and my wife are registered carers and our son attends Durham Trinity school. He is also under CAMHS and the effect that the Hallgarth events are having is documented in his medical history.

 

Throughout all this, the owner has not engaged. I have never spoken to him despite numerous attempts to do so. The management response is that they can do nothing more than ask that the doors are kept shut and try to keep the sound limiters on. They will not insist on this however, and from numerous times we have asked them to do this, they see us as a nuisance.

 

I realise that reading a one-sided viewpoint there will always be questions about how reaonsable the statement is. However there are facts that can be checked to substantiate our concerns. At the meeting with the case officer last year the owner promised to fix a wall which was in serious risk of falling and speak to one of the residents about bass control at a face to face meeting last year - both of which didn’t happen. They have also not removed the surveying bolt that was placed on our (the residents) land, this land was illegally surveyed because they did not have permission for the survey.

 

And specific to this application, at the meeting with the case officer last year the owner promised to carry out a site wide noise management plan as part of the planning application for the Spa, this again has not been carried through. 

 

Further to this there are consistent representations from the majority of the immediate neighbours to this application.

 

We don’t believe that the Hallgarth Manor Hotel is being run in a manner that a village like Pittington deserves. It does not show the Village, or its residents, any respect.

 

The application for the Spa should, in theory, be something we would welcome. But there has been a considerable loss of trust in how the business is run and I’m afraid that there is nothing for us to believe that they will run the Spa any more responsibly than they will their current business.

 

For this reason, we have objected to the planning permission”.

 

The Committee Services Officer read out a statement from Billy Walton, Local Resident in objection to the application.

 

“My family and I have been residents in the area of Hallgarth for over 25 years. I have recently submitted an objection to the proposed planning application for change of use of the existing house known as the Orchard, from residential to spa use.

 

The house was previously owned by an elderly couple who despite marketing the property for a long period of time could not sell it due to the concerns of noise and disturbances from the hotel functions, this continued until the hotel eventually purchased the house.

 

This seemed like a very convenient strategy from them because it eliminated the problem of complaints from the “then” occupiers of the Orchard household, and also to give them freedom to expand the existing commercial operation further into a residential area.

Since the sale completed the noise levels and disturbance that We have been experiencing from the Hallgarth Manor House for over 20 years has gotten worse than ever.

 

A previous owner from the Orchard House once had an unwelcome visitor that was actually found in her kitchen they had gained access through the hedge that separated the property from the Manor. I understand that this was not the current occupiers responsibility but now that they have cut down the conifer hedge that has been growing there for 30 years and replaced in part with low fence and farm gate for access.

 

My point is that this not only makes access from the Manor easier but transfers the trespassing problem to the next house in line, which is a bungalow resided at by a 95-year-old lady who needs care and support. Security precautions should have been made to protect old and vulnerable neighbours as soon as the property was acquired by the Hotel.

 

In principle we have no objection to any business achieving success nor to the enjoyment of their patrons but this should not be at the expense of destroying ours and our neighbour’s quality of life.

 

In the summer of 2022 we had meetings with planners and representatives of the Manor including the owner, he seemed at the time to be very constructive and willing to listen. However some of the verbally agreed solutions to our concerns have not been followed up and it feels like a case of “tell them what they want to hear” for the benefit of the planning officers in attendance.

 

The impact of the resident’s quality of life should be seriously considered in this application, and so should the impact of wildlife and the environment. We are serviced in this area by septic Tanks for our sewerage and worry that the chemical waste from an operating spa may not be disposed of safely. We are proud of this tranquil little hamlet and we need help to be protect it from commercial use and the power and wealth that comes with it.

 

We should also be mindful and look at the big picture, to see that this proposal and the concurrent application to Grant a premises licence, allowing them to play live or recorded music outdoors until the early hours of the morning doesn’t make commercial sense, why would you want to be able to play late night music outdoors and potentially disturb your own hotel guests and Spa customers. The application would also eliminate any constraints that were previously agreed to limit noise levels within the premises because the noise outside would drown it out and would also be heard for miles. Please don’t allow a possible late night venue to be dressed as a Hotel and Spa.

 

 

As residents all we want is to be able to enjoy the basic comforts of life. To be able to sit in our own gardens when the weather allows without worrying that disturbance from across the street will make it unbearable and to be able go to bed at night and be able to sleep.

 

We are dreading the arrival of the summer months when outdoor activities can take place and worry about what might come next amidst the rumours of glamping pods and live outdoor bands.

 

This area is a conservation zone and residential, please don’t allow it to be expanded, commercialized and turned into something that is more suited to a city centre”.

 

The Chair thanked the Committee Services Officer and asked Joseph Cuthbert, Agent for the applicant to speak in support of the application.

 

J Cuthbert reminded Members of the context of the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic on the hotel and hospitality industry and explained the owner of the hotel had a number of hotels in the county.  He noted that Hallgarth Manor was at risk of closure and needed investment to survive.  He explained that a spa offer was fundamental as part of a short break package to secure the hotel’s future.  He added that the planned redevelopment would take place at the hotel over a few years and would be done so sympathetically to secure the future of the business.  He noted any future application would be for future consideration, in terms of the additions referred to by Councillor D Hall, noting the challenges in terms of the existing listed building and conservation area.  He noted therefore the decision had been made to purchase The Orchard and to, through minor internal alteration, provide spa facilities.

 

Councillor M Wilkes entered the meeting at 10.22am

 

J Cuthbert noted that Planning Officers had stated the application would not harm the Listed Building or conservation area and would positively sustain heritage.  He noted access would be via Hallgarth Road and the access was a typical entrance and would not be altered, it would be retained for use in terms of maintenance, with most access being from the main hotel.

 

In reference to noise, J Cuthbert noted the issue had been raised for a number of years, usually associated with activities such as weddings in the gardens.  He added there had been some misunderstandings as regards the current application, noting that it would not generate any additional noise as activities associated with the spa were not external.  He concluded by noting that the spa development was the first stage in redeveloping the hotel into a boutique hotel with an emphasis on relaxation and not events, and would ask that the Committee approve the application.

The Chair thanked the speakers and asked the Senior Planning Officer (LM) if she could address the points raised.

 

The Senior Planning Officer (LM) noted that the application before Members did not refer to any wider redevelopment of the hotel and any such application would be considered on its own merits.  She noted that the larger management plan referred to was not relevant to this application, noting that the Council’s Environmental Health Section were satisfied with the assessments and information submitted in relation to the proposed spa, subject to conditions as set out within the report.  She noted that only information relating to the spa development was relevant for this application, and in respect of any Licensing application she noted that would be dealt with under separate legislation.  She noted that the use in terms of music and events for a number of years, reiterating Licensing applications were separate from Planning.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer (LM) and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted there was a lot to unpack in terms of the application.  He noted frustration in terms of a lack of information in respect of plant equipment as it may have considerable energy consumption and be of interest to the Committee.  He noted there was no information as regards chemicals being used, and what the treatment and disposal would be of waste water.  He explained that the big issue appeared to be the local concerns raised as regards increasing noise levels.  He understood as regards the separate Licensing application, however, asked why a noise management plan had not been requested.

 

The Senior Planning Officer (LM) noted that Environmental Health had originally asked for additional information and upon receipt, they had considered that, subject to the conditions within the report, that the application was not unacceptable in terms of noise.  She noted external elements, such as the terrace were set out at Condition 7 in terms of the extent of hours it may be used.  She explained that the red line plan was for The Orchard, and not the existing Manor and reiterated that only the spa element was being considered in the application before Committee, with conditions as set out.

 

The Chair noted the issue of waste water had been raised by Councillor J Elmer.  The Senior Planning Officer (LM) noted that such disposal was, again, outside of planning and covered under separate legislation.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted the application may be considered contentious by those objecting, however, there did not appear to be any planning policy basis on which to overturn the Officer’s recommendation.  

He reiterated his frustration in terms of lack of environmental impacts, however, he would reluctantly move approval as per the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillor K Robson seconded the motion for approval, noting that the noise issues seemed to relate to a previous permission and use and it was stated there would not be additional noise from the proposed spa.  He noted it was important to try to get people to visit County Durham and promote all the County had to offer.

 

Councillor C Marshall noted, after listening to the representations made, he was minded to approve the application and supported the promotion of County Durham.  He suggested for future applications, that the operator worked and engaged early with Local Members and residents to try to work out issues prior to applications coming to Committee.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.