Agenda item

6no. tourism units with associated access, parking and amenity space

Land North Of North Farm, Embleton, Alnwick, Northumberland

NE66 3DX

6NO. TOURISM UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PARKING AND AMENITY SPACE

LAND NORTH OF NORTH FARM, EMBLETON, ALNWICK, NORTHUMBERLAND

NE66 3DX

J Sharp, Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee with the aid of a Power Point presentation.  He advised that additional letters of support had been received which took the total to 30 and one further letter of objection had been received in addition to the objection from the Parish Council.

A statement from Embleton Parish Council was read out to the Committee by L Little, Senior Democratic Services Officer and a copy would be filed with the signed minutes and be uploaded to the Council’s website.

A statement from the applicant in support of the application was read out to the Committee by V Cartmell, Planning Area Manager and a copy would be filed with the signed minutes and be uploaded to the Council’s website.

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

•     This application was within the AONB which required that development would conserve or enhance the special qualities of the AONB and Officers were of the opinion that the tourism benefit or any other benefit of the proposed development outweighed the harm to the AONB.   A High Court decision within the last few weeks in relation to another AONB was highlighted and the great weight that the conservation and enhancement to the AONB had played in making the decision.  The applicant had offered to enter into a S106 legal agreement to extinguish the existing consent for the siting of 9 caravans should this application be granted, which had been accepted, however there was no policy which would require the applicant to do this.

•     The Solicitor advised that a statutory requirement of a S106 agreement was that any obligation had to be necessary in order to allow the application to be granted.   If Members were minded to approve this application then it would need to be stated that the extinguishment of the approval for the 9 caravans was a requirement for this application to be granted.  She also reminded Members that should they be minded to grant permission that a comprehensive set of conditions would be attached to an application of this type.

•     Whilst the policies of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan had been given weight in the consideration of the application, these had not been used for reasons for refusal.  Development in the open countryside had also not been used as reason for refusal.  An outline of the various policies contained in the Alnwick Core Strategy and Embleton Neighbourhood Plan were provided which both supported development in open countryside which supported farming and associated farming business and allowed development outside the boundaries for sustainable tourism and leisure respectively; and Alnwick District Wide Local Plan which protected the AONB.   The application site was within the extremely sensitive site of the AONB and great weight need to be given to the AONB test.

•     Caravans were seen as temporary structures as opposed to the proposed tourist units which were permanent structures and therefore increased the impact on the AONB.

•     The difficult balance was understood, however the NPPF helped with guidance as it was not a straight planning balance.  The recent Judicial Reviews had clearly stated that the conservation and enhancement of the AONB puts it into a special category of material considerations and it was not a planning balance, this was about protecting a very narrow coastal strip where views and tranquillity were of great importance.  Whilst there was an appreciation of the design put forward, the vernacular of the site was of importance and there was an existing policy related to the type of static caravans which would be expected to be sited.  Due to the topography caravans would not be visible from the road, however this proposal would increase the built form. Caravans would be less intrusive on the coast and would deliver a diversification of tourism offer. 

•     The previous large farm structures on the site had been moved to the other side of the road and the existing farm steading was being masked by new buildings.

•     Statements on the site capacity would not be made by the planning team and an applicant could come forward with any application, however the views of the AONB Officer would need to be sought and their opinion on site capacity discussed.  An application to relocate the proposed buildings on the location proposed for the caravans would need to be the subject of a separate application and a decision was required on the application before the Committee today.

•     Whilst it was regrettable that no response had been provided by Tourism Officers this was not a reason to hold up an application. The tourism benefits had been acknowledged however the proposed development would not conserve or enhance the AONB.

•     Members had to consider whether the development of the proposed buildings would enhance or conserve the setting of the AONB and if the relinquishment the existing permission for the 9 caravans would assist with this.  It was clarified that the wording of a S106 agreement would require the applicant to agree that the existing permission for the 9 caravans would not be implemented.

Councillor Bridgett proposed approval of the application subject to conditions to be agreed by the Director of Planning and Vice-Chair (Planning) and subject to a S106 agreement stating that planning application 19/00510/COU would not be implemented and to also include a contribution in respect of coastal mitigation.  Councillor Bridgett stated he considered that the provision of 6 units rather than 9 caravans would have less impact on the setting of the AONB.  This proposal was seconded by Councillor Renner-Thompson.

Councillors Pattison and Hill advised that they could not go against the recommendation of the Planning Officer and views of the AONB Officer and could not support the proposal to approve the application.  An alternative view was provided by other Members of the Committee who considered that the provision of good quality traditional buildings would be an improvement to the provision of caravans.

A vote was taken as follows:  FOR 8; AGAINST 2; ABSTENSIONS 0.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED subject to conditions to be agreed by the Director of Planning and Vice-Chair (Planning) and subject to a S106 agreement stating that planning application 19/00510/COU would not be implemented and which would also include a contribution in respect of coastal mitigation.