Agenda item

Erection of covered terrace to provide additional seating area and associated car parking updates

Land West Of Paddock Hall, North Choppington, Northumberland

Erection of covered terrace to provide additional seating area and associated car parking updates

Land West Of Paddock Hall, North Choppington, Northumberland

A Ali, Planning Officer provided an introduction to the report with the aid of a power point presentation.

Councillor Murphy addressed the Committee speaking as the local Ward Councillor in support of the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       The Choppington Ward in which the business sat was a few small villages and some outlying farms and cottages and along with neighbouring Stakeford sat alongside and in between larger towns which seemed to attract funding for which they were not eligible. They were the only Wards in Northumberland with no cycleways; not eligible for Borderlands funding; did not attract tourist funding and were not on the map for the reinvestment in rail travel in the South East of the County. The child poverty level in the Ward was 29.1% and the MP for the area recently produced a report on routes out of poverty for children and families in the area. Of the 15 recommendations made, 4 of them were linked to the importance and role of local businesses in developing the necessary economic infrastructure to enable residents to thrive; and 4 referenced community wealth, building apprenticeships, part time and flexible working being available in local communities. Tea in the Paddock was one of those essential businesses without which Choppington would be even more impoverished.

·       The importance of tourism as a future benefit to the area was highlighted and the need for businesses such as this to meet the needs of those visitors.  The area had a beautiful river, riverside walks, stunning woods and could have great links to the rest of the County if they had the necessary infrastructure. These issues had been raised with the Leader and she would keep fighting for them.

·       The Officer’s report suggested that the exception for approving this application on the grounds of tourism could not be met as there was currently no tourist businesses.  That was a circular argument and a real blow to any business wanting to develop tourism in Choppington. 

·       To develop and encourage tourism there was a need to develop, nurture and encourage the businesses which would make tourists want to come and this was the kind of business which was needed to kick start that process.  Without the courage of local business owners, who were prepared to take the financial risks and cope with the worry that went with putting your family finances on the line then she might as well forget about her long term vision for Choppington Woods as a tourist destination.  She would love to see NCC encourage tourism in non- traditional tourist areas rather than write them off as non-tourist areas.

·       The applicant’s agent was here to speak to speak on the technical aspects of the report which they disagreed with, however she was here to present what the business meant to that community.  Throughout the report it referred to a building, which gave a picture of bricks and mortar, however it was a simple wooden pergola, a platform for tables and chairs and laid on what was previously a car park. It was in keeping with a farm with stables, looks quirky, fun, rustic and welcoming.

·       The petition had been started on a Thursday afternoon and had almost 4,000 signatures by Monday morning and the application had received 185 letters of support.  It was a popular business which met an essential community need; was the beginning of tourism infrastructure which could lift a whole community towards a better economy and the County Council was placing significant obstacles in its way.

·       Members were here as elected representatives, to represent the interests of their residents and to meet the needs of their communities and whilst she respected planning laws and officers and appreciated the challenges facing them in assessing applications, on this occasion felt that they had got it wrong.  It was a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

·       If Members were considering supporting the Officer’s recommendation then she asked that the application be deferred for a site visit to be undertaken so Members could see the structure being referred to and the almost minimal impact it had on the landscape.

J Nugent, agent on behalf of the applicant spoke in support of the application.  His comments included the following:-

·       Para. 2.4 of the report stated the 2017 planning permission for the café was not ancillary to the equestrian centre and the planning permission was a standalone consent. This had been discussed and agreed with the Planning Manager which they confirmed by email on 22 September

·       It was understood the Officer had not carried out a site visit in the 12 months the application had been with the Planning Dept. Their assessment of the application was therefore considered as desktop as no site visit to observe the details of the site had been completed.

·       Following the publication of the Committee Report an online petition was set up to support the application. This currently had 3,500 signatures and in addition to the 185 letters of support on Public Access and signatures from the support book at the café the total was over 4,000. 

·       The principle of development had been established by the existing café. The extended seating area used the same materials as the existing café premises, and the seating area would infill the current L-shape creating a square.

·       The assessment of the development was considered incorrect in Para.7.7 as this related to the café being ancillary to the equestrian centre and referred to proposed diversification. These were errors as stated earlier and were not considered relevant in this instance.

·       The Officer stated the building had been extended in the past, however this was not supported by evidence and was considered incorrect. 

·       The development accorded with the Local Plan STP 7 and 8, and Paragraph 149 of the NPPF. Paragraph149g allowed the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land. Spatially the site was previously developed land by the existing hardstanding and the development would infill the L-shape on the existing hardstanding. 

·       The site included the equestrian facility and stables, the car park and café, and the dwelling. The pergola and seating area were not observed from the East, South, or West due to the screening by existing buildings at the wider site.  The pergola and seating area were only observed from the North. Views from the public highway were considered limited.  Where views were afforded, the development was a lower elevation from the host building and materials matched the existing building. The development assimilates with the host building. 

·       A Bistro was defined in dictionaries as a small informal restaurant, and this reflected the character of Tea in the Paddock.  A license to serve alcohol did not change the use of a business to a drinking establishment and did not change the primary use of a premises as it remained ancillary.

·       The Officer considered the use of the site to have evolved, however there was no supporting evidence for that statement. The café served an extensive food menu including breakfast, lunch, dinner. The receipts for the business show wet sales as teas, coffee, soft drinks, and food as the prime sales. 

·       The assessment of this application was understood to have been completed without a site visit and the Officer had afforded weight throughout the report to the café being ancillary to the equestrian centre and this had been confirmed by the Planning Manager to be incorrect.  No evidence had been provided to support the statements relating to the assumed evolved uses at the café. The primary sales at the business remained hot and cold non-alcoholic drinks, and food served throughout the day. 

·       The development accorded with local and national Green Belt policies by infill on previously developed land and Members were asked to support the application.

L Sinnamon, Head of Development Manager advised that in respect of the Green Belt, on balance Officers felt that the development was inappropriate as the extension would have an urbanising effect and would affect the openness of the Green Belt.  It was a matter for Members to consider if they had views on the openness and decide on balance on any harm.   In relation to the open countryside, Policy STP1 in the Northumberland Local Plan (NLP) directed development within the settlement boundary and this was outside.  Members could consider if the development met the exception Policy ECN13 of the NLP in that it would create job opportunities and create growth.   She further advised that this application was able to be evaluated as a desk top exercise in that it was against Green Belt policy and in the open countryside and that visits to a site were not necessary for all applications with the report and information, including photographs, in the presentation sufficient for Members to make a decision. 

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

·       In line with Policy ECN13, Members could consider whether the application met rural employment needs or if it provided employment opportunities.  Officers had no issue with the materials to be used they were just applying Green Belt and Open Countryside Policies. 

·       If Members were minded to approve the application then it could be delegated to the Director of Planning and Chair to agree to conditions to be attached to any permission.

·       There were two tests in relation to paragraph 149g of the NPPF, the first being about previous development and the second not causing harm to the openness of the Green Belt.  Officers considered that the application would impact on the openness of the Green Belt, however it was for Members to decide.

·       The number of employees or time the business had been in operation was not known, however it was well established and operated 7 days per week and therefore it would be assumed that it had a number of employees.

·       The application was for a stand-alone business and its use was not ancillary to the equestrian centre.   The application was for the erection of the extension to the covered terrace and Members needed to focus on how they assessed that extension as being in the open countryside.

Councillor Sanderson left the meeting after the first question was asked.

Councillor Wearmouth proposed approval of the application as it met with the exception of paragraph 149g of the NPPF and did not impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and accorded with Policies ECN13 and STP1 in that it would generate employment opportunities and would provide a positive improvement to the environment with conditions to be attached delegated to the Director of Planning and Chair to agree.  This was seconded by Councillor Dodd. 

Members stated that whilst they recognised that Officers were technically correct in their assessment of the application, they considered that on balance the extension would not be detrimental to the local area or openness of the Green Belt, the business was vital to the area, promoted economic growth and could in time become a destination place to drawn in tourists to the area.

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application for the reasons as outlined above and it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED application as it met with the exception of paragraph 149g of the NPPF and did not impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and accorded with Policies ECN13 and STP1 in that it would generate employment opportunities and would provide a positive improvement to the environment with conditions to be attached delegated to the Director of Planning and Chair to agree.

Councillor Murphy left the Chamber at this point.