Agenda item

Change of use from dwellinghouse and cottage (C3 use) to guest accommodation (C1 use); single-storey rear extension to form wedding venue; and car parking (As amended)

Shildon, Corbridge, Northumberland, NE45 5PY

There were no questions arising from the site visit videos which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and reported the following:

 

·        An update had been circulated on Friday with three additional representations that were received between the officer report being drafted and being published on the website.  In summary, the additional representations raised concerns in respect of:

-      The amount of proposed car parking provision, within the context of the decision at last month’s committee to refuse a wedding venue at Linnels;

-      Impact on highway safety;

-      The experience of the applicant in running a viable business has not been independently verified;

-      The economic benefits case submitted by the applicant has not been independently verified;

-      The site is located within the Green Belt and the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site Buffer Zone which were constraints for the proposed development;

-      The visual impact of the proposed development on existing buildings within the site;

-      The application indicated that wedding events would not be the only use of the proposed development; and

-      The location of off-site highways works and subsequent impact on Hadrian’s Wall Vallum, located to the northeast of the application site.

·        A second update had been circulated to Members the previous day with updated comments from the Highways team; along with updated condition numbers following a typo on the officer report; and updates to Paragraph 7.88 of the officer report  in order to refer to Policy BE2 of the Tynedale District Local Plan in respect of Equality Duty; and updates to Paragraph 8.1 of the officer report following a typo.

·        The updated Highways comments received sought to address concerns raised by members of the public in light of the decision that was made on the previous application for a wedding venue at Linnels.  The updated response set out the differences between the scale of the development currently being considered at Shildon and the scale of the previously considered scheme at Linnels.  Whilst it was considered that there was insufficient car parking to be provided at Linnels which would lead to an unacceptable impact on the highway network, it was considered that there was sufficient car parking to be provided as part of the currently proposed scheme at Shildon; subject to the approval of a Full Events Management Plan which it was recommended be secured by a condition.  The Highways team did not object to the application, subject to conditions.

 

Ms. N. Allan spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the occupants at Shildon Grange and 10 other properties at Halton Shields.  She highlighted the following:-

 

·        Some work had commenced on site following pre-application discussions, purchase and submission of the planning application.

·        There was no evidence of the applicant’s experience.

·        The application was for a commercial wedding venue which was not tourism and therefore not supported by policies CS1, INF2 or ECN16.

·        A suggestion that the venue would be available for charitable use was groundless and should not be taken into account.

·        The economic case demonstrated that this was intended to be a substantial business with 30 permanent jobs in the first year increasing to 50 in year 2 which would have an impact on the local environment and amenity from the scale of the business.

·        It was not in a sustainable location and it was inevitable that guests would travel by car.  If the Highways Development advice was applied from the recent Linnels application, 67 car parking spaces would be required in year 1 and 99 car parking spaces in year 2.  This did not include extra staff such as hairdressers, beauticians, stylists, band members etc.

·        The Highways Officer had not said that parking provision was sufficient, but less parking under provision to resolve.

·        The site was located in the Green Belt where great weight should be afforded to preserving the Green Belt and keeping it permanently open.

·        The proposed extension was full height and width at the back of the range of buildings and two bays in depth.

·        The 38% increase was on the historic asset in its entirety including outbuildings.  This would have a significant impact on openness which was harm by definition.

·        This was not the right building or location to accommodate 200 guests.

·        The movement of traffic, people and intensification of activity harmed openness, not just buildings, which was taken into account in the Linnels application.

·        There was no limit on the frequency of events and parking for any application could be classed temporary.

·        The conditions allowed a 10db increase at noise sensitive receptors which was a doubling of noise and it was queried why the same condition had not been applied as other wedding events which was 90% of background levels.  It might be too late to resolve important issues obtaining noise levels after the scheme was built.  Noise from people outside the venue were not taken into account (the Lombard effect) and noise from people leaving.

·        Traffic would arrive within a very short window of events with an increase on local roads.  A one-way system could not be enforced on a public highway and there would be problems with the dangerous junction with the Aydon Road.

·        The area suffered from low water pressure.

·        The application could only have policy support if it did not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity.

·        There were concerns regarding marquee use under permitted development which would be allowed for 28 days without being constrained by these conditions.

 

Mr. S. Glover, the applicant spoke in support of the application.  He stated that:-

 

·        They were delighted that the application had been recommended for approval.

·        He wished to reassure those with concerns that they would endeavour to be excellent neighbours and bring much positivity to the area.

·        Planning and licensing safeguards were in place to ensure that they operated within the rules.

·        They had searched for months for a property in a secluded location.  Many venues across the county functioned in harmony with neighbours in closer proximity than the nearest dwellings to Shildon.

·        He and his business partner understood the importance of peace and tranquility to those who live in the countryside and did not underestimate their responsibilities.

·        Benefits of the scheme included:

-      An improved road system;

-      Regeneration of land;

-      Replacing all fossil fuels with renewable energy;

-      Significant employment;

-      Financial injection into the local supply chain; and

-      A rise in footfall and spend for local businesses from increased visitor numbers.

·        Work required by Highways included passing places and widening which would improve the country lane with wider public benefit.

·        Implementation of an event management plan included marshalling when guests arrived and departed, so that any increase in traffic would be managed with little effect on the relative few users of the road.  Eco-friendly minibuses would be used to transfer larger groups of guests in several vehicles to and from the venue to reduce any potential impact on the environment and the road that served the property.

·        A small portion of land would be regenerated enabling people to enjoy the beauty of Shildon and the nearby area.  The extension to the rear would replace a rotten lean-to with a tastefully clad timber structure and bring a disused stable block back in to use with retention on many original features.  The new buildings would be sympathetically designed to blend in with its surroundings with soundproofing to ensure no noise spill.

·        The project would be innovative and aimed to be an environmentally aware venue, introducing renewable and sustainable energy, installing heat pumps, solar panels, rainwater harvesting tanks and charging points for electric vehicles, with demonstration of methods to educational institutions.

·        The property would be used as a wedding venue for only a small proportion of the time and hoped to engage with leaders of local community schemes to use and benefit from the space.

·        The team had a combined 50 years of wedding and event management related experience, multimillion-pound budgets and large teams of people.  They forecast permanent employment for 50 staff within 2 years, endeavouring to fill as many positions from the local area.

·        There would be a positive effect on the hospitality supply chain businesses that operate alongside the wedding industry in Tynedale and the surrounding area.  Benefits from increases in tourism with guests spending in local shops, restaurants, pubs, hotels, bed and breakfast accommodation and rented properties, hopefully returning in the future.

·        The new Northumberland Local Plan placed great emphasis on tourism and hospitality and they believed that ventures like theirs should be supported where possible.

·        The management team were dedicated to ensuring its long-term viability and sustainability.

·        Reference to a quote from a local councillor who stated that the local economy needed to be kickstarted to create conditions to encourage new investment, businesses and jobs were vital.

·        They hoped that with the scheme meeting all planning requirements that members would support the application.

 

In response to questions from Members the following information was provided:-

 

·        A traffic survey had been commissioned by the applicant which calculated 20-30 vehicles used the c road daily and classed as light use.  This was consistent with the 3-4 vehicles seen during a visit by the Highways officer.

·        Highways Development did not have a set standard for car parking at wedding venues.  An event management plan was to be put in place and larger events would trigger use of minibuses.

·        The proposed conditions had been reviewed by officers to ensure they were precise and enforceable.  Any complaints from neighbours regarding excessive noise would be investigated and enforcement action taken if noise levels breached, this included cessation of activity until the issue was resolved.  Noise could also be investigated under the statutory nuisance process and under the legislation for sale of alcohol and conditions attached to premises licenses.

·        It was estimated that there would be an average of 3 guest per car when considering single occupants, couples, larger families and occupants of minibuses, to calculate the number of car parking spaces required.  Criteria within the event management plan set out measures to prevent overspill on the highway and ensure that parking was contained within the site.  Direction of one-way traffic was not practical and therefore passing places were to be constructed to the north and south of the site.

·        The development could not be brought into use until the event management plan was submitted and approved.

·        Key differences between this application and the Linnels application which had been recently refused included: consideration of Green belt issues including the scale of the additions, the provision and location of parking on both sites was different, and the impact on several heritage assets differed and in general the harm to the setting differed.  It was therefore considered that there were sufficient differences to warrant a different recommendation although each case was considered on its own merits.

·        The starting point for assessing a planning application was the development plan and policies which supported sustainable growth and expansion of business in rural areas.  Wedding venues fall within the type of business these policies support.  There was a recognition that the locations for those businesses needed to be in sensitive surroundings and this needed to be assessed to ascertain that there was not an unacceptable impact on roads and that opportunities for sustainability were exploited.  The policies also had to be assessed against Green Belt harm, highways impact, harm on heritage assets and generally assessed against the impact on the landscape and open countryside.  Taking into account those material considerations, on balance officers came to the conclusion that this was an acceptable form of development.

·        Shildon House was a non-designated heritage asset and the sundial within the grounds was Grade II listed.

·        Clarification was provided regarding noise levels and comparisons made with unamplified conversations (55 dB) and a dishwasher (30-40 dB).  Condition 20 required the applicant’s acoustic consultant to measure background noise levels to ensure that there was no impact from the development on nearby residents.

·        Condition number 11 (to be revised to number 12) which referred to submission of an events management plan and provision of a ‘sustainable’ shuttle bus service was used instead of ‘electric’ in order to future proof the condition and what was meant by sustainable as in future years.  Use of the word sustainable also gave the local authority and applicant flexibility, given that it was a new business and whilst committed to sustainable credentials, but they needed a chance to grow.

·        Officers assessed the percentage volume increase of extensions when compared with existing buildings.  The proposal at Linnels was considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt whilst the proposed extension at Shildon was 38%, which was not considered to be a disproportionate addition.

 

Councillor Hutchinson proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report.  This was seconded by Councillor Stewart and unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report and the officers update report.

 

Councillor Cessford returned to the meeting.