Agenda item

Change of use from former field centre to single private dwelling.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer for the change of use from a former field centre (C2 Use Class) to single private dwelling (C3 Use class) (for copy see file of minutes). 

S Pilkington, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of

the application which included the site location, photographs of the site, aerial images (that showed the building to the North East corner, the car park and amenities that were on site) and the proposed site plan that showed there would be no changes to the site.  Upon consultation the spatial planning team raised concern that any decision should guard against the loss of community facilities and services.  The building had been last used as an education centre and was not deemed a community facility.  There were eight letters of objection and five letters of support.  The property had deteriorated over the years and was considered a Non-Designated Heritage Asset.  The property would provide three large bedrooms, a bathroom, a home office, a kitchen, a snug and a lounge. 

Mr Atkinson, neighbour addressed the committee in objection to the application.  He informed the committee that he had lived in Teesdale from childhood and had settled as an adult in the village to raise a small family.  He worked with schools and scout groups to provide outdoor activities.  He did not operate his business for profit but to share his passion of the outdoors and sought reward in children’s achievements and accomplishments.  He gave an example of working with a child who had feared water but through paddle boarding the child had lost that fear.  He felt that the less time children spent outdoors their mental health issues doubled.

Mr Atkinson had offered to purchase or lease the property from the church to extend the affordable service he provided to schools but he had been refused.  He was saddened that the building had closed seven years ago and he believed the building should be given a chance to serve the community as an activity centre.  He had planned to renovate the property as he saw a need and value for the area to provide an idyllic spot where children could experience the outdoors. He felt that if the application was approved there would be fewer opportunities like his proposal in the area for children to experience the outdoors as other enterprises had closed.

Mrs Sparrow addressed the committee on behalf of herself and her husband as joint applicants for the change of use of the disused field studies centre in Baldersdale, back to a residential dwelling.  She explained that the reason for their application was to enable them to purchase the property as their home.  She noted that this had been something that the pre-application advice had given that stated that the council would foresee no objection in principle to and therefore, they made their offer to purchase the property. She explained that her husband was from Teesdale and that they wanted to make their home and life in the area. She clarified that they both loved being outdoors and could not think of a more brilliant place to call their home.

Mrs Sparrow informed the Committee that they had built connections as a couple within the wider community in Cotherstone, where they were currently renting. She hoped that if they could make the property their long-term home, they would become part of the Baldersdale community as well. The property was being sold by the local Church to fund a children and family worker for the area, which they were keen to see moved forward.

She informed the committee that historically the building had been a schoolhouse that served Baldersdale, but the school had closed in the 1950s. After the closure, the property was a private home, and they aimed to make this a home once again. The property had never been run commercially and there were commercially run groups and hostel type accommodation in both Teesdale and Weardale.  The property was a non-designated heritage asset and in need of repairs and updating and they believed that their application would result in the ability to conserve the property and invest in it for the future.

With regard to the accessible features of the property, Mrs Sparrow worked as an Occupational Therapist in Social Care with disabled people. Disabled people were disenfranchised from the countryside due to lack of facilities and support. The accessible features would be kept and improved for their longer-term plans as outlined in the supporting documentation.

Mrs Sparrow was keen to continue to support local businesses and economies of the local villages around Baldersdale as she wanted to see the place and its people do well.  She thanked the committee for their time and consideration of the application and acknowledged the frustration that would have been felt by the other party initially having their offer accepted for the property but later withdrawn. However, this only happened because the estate agent had failed to submit her final offer to the vendor.

Mrs Tiplady, neighbour spoke in support of the application.  She explained that she had lived in the farm next to the property for twelve years.  The farm had been run by several generations of her partners family.  Her partners father had attended the school that had operated from the premises.  She noted that after the school closed it was changed into an education centre but had never been an outdoor centre as the garden was not big enough for activities.  The area was isolated and she had welcomed the news as did her children that they would have new neighbours.  She stated that with rural crime the additional neighbours would create extra vigilant support with someone living in close proximity.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that Policy 10 (development in the countryside) within the County Plan could be key to protect an existing community facility.  This had been considered by Officers and it was felt that the building was not deemed to be a community facility and had not met the day to day needs of the community as it had been closed for seven years. 

Councillor S Quinn could see both sides of the debate.  She noted that the building was derelict and had not been used for several years.  Although it was a beautiful area she could understand the need for security for the nearby dwelling and Moved that the application be approved.  She believed it would be a shame if the property fell into further disrepair to the point that it could not be recovered.

Councillor G Richardson queried if the application was overturned how Mr Atkinson would fund the outdoor centre.

Mr Atkinson explained that he had submitted an offer to buy the property but was refused at the last minute.  He had planned to finance the outdoor centre through his father’s pension and through monies paid by organisations like schools, girl guide groups and scout groups that used the facilities.  It would be run as a business with a commercial mortgage that would offer activities at competitive prices that organisations could afford.

Councillor D Brown asked if the Public Right of Way (PROW) that ran through the grounds of the property could be diverted if it was deemed necessary.

The Principal Planning Officer responded that there would a separate procedure for the applicant to follow should they require the PROW to be diverted.

Councillor J Atkinson did not see the building as a community asset.  He sensed that the renovations required to the building would be expensive.  He Seconded Councillor S Quinn to approve the application. 

Councillor A Savory remarked that the building was derelict and had not been used as an outdoor centre in the past.  She thought the property would need a lot of repairs.  She felt that the Children and Family worker that would be employed in the area by the sale of the property would be a much needed provision for children and families in the vicinity.  She was in support of people who moved to the Dales to help sustain the area.

Councillor S Zair stressed that the Committee should determine the application that had been presented.  He felt for Mr Atkinson but stated he would vote for the officer’s recommendations to approve the change of use of the property into a residential dwelling.

Councillor M McKeon queried if the building could fit into the traditional idea of what a community building was.  She questioned how the application fit within planning policy around tourism and the reduction in tourist accommodation.  She thanked Mr Atkinson for his presentation but explained that Members were restricted by the planning framework.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that within the Durham County Plan the building could be recognised as a community building but it was never used as accommodation and therefore the tourism element could not be applied. 

Councillor G Richardson was saddened by the application that the Dales would lose such a building and as such he would vote against the recommendation. 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

Resolved

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed in the report.