Agenda item

Resubmission – Retrospective application for outdoor dining facilities within car parking area to front. Material amendment to roof covering and part timber cladding.

Percy Arms, Chatton, Alnwick, Northumberland, NE66 5PS

J. Sharp – Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

H. Prytherch spoke in objection to the application and gave the committee the following information:

·       The applicant bought the Public House without the outdoor seating area. If additional dining was needed, the applicant could use the rooms East of the main entrance.

·       The development would not be in keeping with the village.

·       There was noise and visual impacts to the cottage adjacent to the development.

·       There was no accessible car parking on site.

·       Closing of the archway to the rear car park had resulted in the only access to the rear car park being from the steep single-track lane.

T. Hume spoke on behalf of Tillside Parish Council and gave the committee the following information:

·       Chatton Village sat either side of the main road from Wooler to the A1 at Bellshill. The village centred around a Public House, a Post Office, and Village Hall.

·       During the farming calendar, forage and harvest times clashed with the tourism season, overwhelming the village with vehicles who have stopped to use the local services.

·       Lack of parking within the village has previously resulted in countryside gridlock as general parking takes up both sides of the B road.

·       Tillside Parish Council had lodged objections on the application being within a conservation area, with the proposal not meeting necessary criteria.

·       The sheds and timber with imitation slate and stone was not in keeping with the conservation area or with the buildings appearance and was not a positive contribution to the village.

·       The application would impede an easy access to the rear parking facilities. The alternative access to the rear parking area was from the North which followed a narrow bank with no guard rails. NCC departments were unable to resolve the parking issue as no appropriate areas had been located in the village.

·       There would be additional noise and light pollution from the outdoor area.

·       Tillside Parish Council objected to permission being given.

D. Dobson spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support to the application, and gave the following information:

·       The outside dining area of the Percy Arms had contributed hugely to the survival of the business over the past 18 months, after such a difficult period for the hospitality industry.

·       The previous owners had used all the car park as a socialising area, obstructing access to the car parking spaces/stable cottage, but the applicant believed that they had tidied that up using one side, making it more visually appealing and heavily investing to help future proof the viability of a traditional county pub.

·       The small amount of car park spaces that would be lost at the front, would be gained at the rear where the access road would be more than adequate for a standard car.

·       The application has been considered against the relevant sections within the National Planning Policy Framework.

·       The outside seating would ensure the ongoing viability of the local Public House, used by local residents and visitors.

·       The roof of the shelters would be covered in mock Welsh slate and the side of the shelters clad with mock stone light grey slips and corners.

·       The would be no loss of parking by the erection of the seating area.

Following questions from members to the planning officers, the following information was provided:

·       The front car park would have 6 car parking spaces and an accessible parking space, and the back car park would have 12 car parking spaces.

·       Access to the rear car park would be via the existing access point.

·       No work would be carried on the single lane access point.

·       The public benefit would be retention of the business.

·       There would be a condition restricting music levels.

·       The development materials would be acceptable as an outdoor dining space.

Councillor Mather proposed to refuse the application on grounds of access issues to the rear car park, increased traffic to the rear of the pub, meaning visitors would have to complete a 3-point turn on a live highway and conservation; that the public benefit was not sufficient to outweigh the harm with the exact wording to be delegated to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee. This was seconded by Councillor Renner-Thompson.

Councillor Thorne explained that he was the general manager of the Percy Arms from 2015-2019 and knew the building well and was a vibrant business, although understood the issues from lockdown. Councillor Thorne understood that there had been an issue with car parking in the village and questioned the car parking solution of the application. This was agreed by Councillor Renner-Thompson stating that visitors would not know about the access to the rear car park if they were not familiar with the area and reminded members that there was a difference between “viable” and “profitable”.

Councillor Hill and Councillor Castle asked whether the viability of the business relied on the application and stated that it would be a disaster to the village if the Public House were to close. Councillor Swinbank explained that if the viability of the business was an issue, it would be beneficial to have the evidence submitted and if the application was refused, it would not mean the applicant could not submit another application for a different outdoor seating development.

Councillor Mather explained that the Parish Council took planning matters very seriously and it was unusual for them to go against businesses in the area and that the Parish Council should be supported, stating NCC would not allow a house with a poor access point, so why allow a business.

A vote was taken as follows: FOR; 10, AGAINST; 1, ABSTAIN; 1

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED due to:

A) Conservation: the public benefit was not sufficient to outweigh the harm.

B) Access issues to the rear car park.

Full wording to be delegated to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee.