Kirstie Charlton, Committee Services Officer.
Neil Carter, I'm the Solicitor to the Committee.
Steven Reed, I'm the Planning Manager Chair.
Graham Blakey, Principal Planning Officer.
Phil Harrison, Highway Development Manager.
Thank you.
Do we have any substitute members, Kirstie?
No, Chair.
Any declarations of interest from any member?
Well, can we approve the minutes of the last meeting held on the eighth of May 2024?
Great, thank you.
So we'll move straight onto the applications to be determined.
Starting with, well, we've only got one application today.
And Graham Blakey is going to present it to us.
It's Akrem Lodge, Staindrop Road, West Auckland.
Thank you, Graham.
Good morning, everybody.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, this application at Akrem Lodge off Staindrop Road next to West Auckland is for the creation
of a holiday and visitor accommodation site for 104 permanent chalets
and around 63 pitches for touring caravans.
Within that, there will be the creation of some amenity buildings, a hub and wash house
which I'll come on to in more detail shortly.
The site itself is located to the southwest of West Auckland.
It's to be accessed from the A688 which you can see running past the site boundary
on the southeast on that road to Barnard Castle.
There is a small burn that runs to the south of the application site
and represents roughly the low point area in the locality.
Copeland Lane which is the yellow road that heads out of West Auckland to the north
of Toronto Woods evenwood gate represents the highest point on the site.
The area of photography is next.
Here we can see the site is located in the countryside.
To the immediate northeast is a petrol filling station located here
and a car parts store in what was another former garage site.
Generally the application site follows traditional agricultural field pattern with elements
of the boundary, vegetation, hedgerows and trees visible in shadow around the site
and you can also pick those out to the north.
Site photographs here show the current access to the application site at the top left
where the committee site visited yesterday.
This would be placed by a larger more appropriate access to the southwest i.e. further away
in the photograph to achieve the visibility display for the proposed junction.
A new worker's dwelling in a state of construction lies between the access
to the development and the development itself.
The access would look around the rear of that building to the site behind.
The other two photographs show within the site and also views out with
the north towards Copeland Lane and the building that we could see there
where the bus stopped on the tour yesterday.
The proposals will be formed at two main phases across the two existing fields on the ground.
To the eastern portion of the site would be the retained acrim stud.
I indicated here.
Followed by the new hub building which is the L-shaped building to the west of that
as well as a washroom, the smaller building next to it
and then the larger, the chalets which are the larger structures shown on this plan.
Further west of the smaller touring pictures which can be seen in this area here
as well as a children's play area at the high point of the site
and the most visually sensitive in landscape terms.
Landscaping is proposed to the perimeter of the site, primarily the north as well as the south
and this plan and within the site as well to break up the layout.
You can see that running in a sort of north-south and in a patched area
and this is to bolster screening to long distance views of the site.
Here we have the elevations of the proposed hub building on the left-hand side.
This is broken down roughly in a 50/50 use between a cafe use and a shop use.
On the right-hand side is the proposed washroom with a floor plan there just indicating the type
of facilities that are in there.
Now onto the wordy slides I'm afraid.
In response to the application, colleagues
and spatial policy highlighted the likely balance that's going to be required
between the overnight visitor accommodation and the landscape hall.
Landscape colleagues have noted that while landscaping within the site is improved,
they highlighted strengthening field boundaries to the north of the site up towards Copeland Lane
as an opportunity to help further screen this development.
Visit County Durham offered their support for visitor accommodation
in the county highlighting the economic benefits
that were detailed more thoroughly in the officer report.
After that, no objections were offered from a selection of other consultees,
including the highway authority to the proposed access arrangement.
There were a small number of objections received upon the application
with primary concerns raised around the existing traffic congestion and safety issues
in the West Oakland and Tyndall area being added to by these proposals.
But also that the site entrance to the proposed site is highlighted as a potential hazard due
to its location on a busy stretch of road with a history of accidents.
Some other opposition raised due to the phase of development would adversely affect the character
of the area as well as lead to anti-social behavior and criminality.
However, it also noted that further separate comments were received by Etherly Parish Council
who was supportive of the proposals and the CPRE who had concerns over the scale
of the development, highway safety, the overall need for it and its locational sustainability.
[ Pause ]
So in summary, the application has competing benefits and harm when assessed
against the County Durham plan.
Therefore, when making a decision on the application, the planning balance of weight
against each benefit and harm is required.
The harm identified is primarily related to landscape impacts judged by officers to result
in a moderate harm that will reduce over time.
Together with some locational sustainability concern assessed as having, in this case, little harm.
The scheme would also bring benefits in the form of overnight visitor accommodation.
That is evidenced as having an important economic impact upon the county.
As such, it has attracted significant weight by officers in their assessment.
So therefore, as a result, these significant economic benefits are considered by officers
to outweigh the moderate landscape harm and lesser locational sustainability harm
as detailed in the report before you.
Therefore, as such, the application is recommended for approval.
Thank you, Jay.
[ Pause ]
Thank you very much, Graham.
Now we have one speaker in support of the application
as planning agent with Steve Hesmonhoft.
You'll have five minutes, Steve, and Kirsty will let you know when you've got a minute
or 30 seconds remaining, whichever.
Thank you, Jay.
Thank you.
Good morning.
My name is Steve Hesmonhoft.
I'm the planning consultant.
It's my practice to put the application together.
And it's not often we will submit a planning application of this type
and present to committee against a backdrop of fairly widespread support.
From the parish council, across all your consortees within the county council,
we've seen support for the scheme.
We've worked with your officers throughout and in response to some initial comments
from your landscape colleagues, reduced and amended the scheme.
We now have a smaller development footprint.
We have reduced numbers and significantly increased the landscaping within the site
and structural planting to reduce the long-distance views across the site.
You will have heard just then that Visit County Durham said that they're supportive
of the scheme because of the fact that there's a shortage of visitor accommodation in the county.
In fact, not wishing to go back over the statement I prepared for your committee report,
I will briefly make these key points.
In the last 10 years, members will be aware that the Auckland Villages have seen a tremendous change in fortune.
That's a combination of the private investment and I think the crucial support from the county council.
And that means that an application like this can come forward with a genuine prospect of being delivered.
Using nationally recognized formula,
we can predict this development will generate an additional spend in the area of around six million pounds a year.
We can split this annually between around two million in food and drink,
three quarters of a million local attractions and half a million local shops.
And add to that the creation of 167 direct and indirect jobs resulting just from this scheme.
Finally, let me say, in the time the application has been under consideration,
my client, Peter Seagrave, very sadly passed away towards the end of last year.
He was a person who had invested heavily in the area and was a significant employer.
His family who are with me here today remain committed to this scheme and are desperate to hear a positive outcome today.
With that in mind, I hope the committee can support their officer's recommendation
and I'll end there, Chair, to say that I remain very happy to answer any questions that members may have.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Dave.
Anything to add to that, Graham?
Thank you.
Do any members have a question for Steve?
Arnie, you were first and then Jim.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
It's just a point of clarification.
The entrance road, it didn't really look wide enough for, you know, caravans to be going on it.
Could we just have a break back on that road, please?
Thanks, Councillor Simpson.
Yeah, I'll just take you back to the photograph first and foremost.
Quite frankly, no, it's not big enough in its current configuration.
So what is being proposed is a new access.
So on that photo, the plan that's up there, you can see the indicative line of trees to the right-hand side of the red line.
That is, in effect, the trees that you can see on that top left photo.
So what that shows is the access road is moving further away, if you like, or further down the road, southwest,
and that will achieve bigger visibility splays in both direction as well as two-way traffic.
Those on the side of the SDL note that the mini-bus was just about wide enough to get through the gate.
It's an agricultural access and it's perfectly serviceable for that purpose.
But a new access is required with the full radius, et cetera, as per the highway authority requirements.
So in effect, that will go beyond the crossrail fencing that you can see in the top left photograph there.
That will push the access roughly into the middle of that field there that gives you visibility both ways to roughly over 200 meters,
which I'll probably defer to the highway authority for further comment on that.
Do you want to come in, Phil, with highway's information at this point or not?
If anyone's got any specific questions, I'm happy to answer, but I think I would just say that the access as proposed meets all the technical standards that we would require.
Thank you. Jim, good to see you. How are you doing?
I'm doing all right, Chair. Thanks very much. Just the officers read out there, just briefly heard the mention of a history of accidents in the area.
So it was quite brief. History of accidents can be there were being no accidents.
It can be very few accidents or lots and lots of accidents.
You just run through that a little bit more detail, please.
Sorry, I'll comment on that, Chair. I think, yeah, we've looked at the accident statistics and there's nothing to suggest that there is an accident.
You know, it's an accident black spot. Unfortunately, there was a fatality there last year.
But again, you have to look into the actual causation of the accidents.
But apart from that, there's really no significant accident history.
There's something that was caused by a medical episode, but we're confident that it isn't a road safety black spot and that this won't create one.
Chair, thanks for that. That makes a difference to the application as far as I'm concerned.
That's a better report than just quickly mentioning the accidents. It helps the...
Well, I understand the accident was further open. The fatality didn't involve the episode, did it?
No, they were separate. They were separate events.
And I personally know of further fatalities a little bit further up that road, to be fair, in years past.
If I could just maybe come back on that, though, Chair.
The plan and policy guidance note issued by the government says that developers only have to consider an accident,
the accident statistics for three years previous or if it's considered to be an accident black spot, five years previous.
So we've checked that period and there's nothing within that that suggests that it is a road safety issue there.
Thank you. Does any other member wish to ask a question of Steve? Dave, David Boyes.
Yeah. Can I just ask the applicant if this is going to be a 12-month site or is it going to be like limited to certain months of the year?
Through you, Chair. The intention here is that the site would be open for 12 months,
but there are all kinds of standard planning conditions relating to the way that these are occupied,
which we're very happy with within the committee report. So it's not intended to be full residential or anything of that nature.
Just to maybe help and outline on some of those conditions.
There's a condition regarding 11 months in a calendar year in terms of level of occupancy.
That's not to say the site can't open for 12 months. It's more an individual lodge.
It can't be occupied for 11 months. So it stops permanent residency, which is a huge issue for planning authorities in regards to that.
So we're comfortable with the package that's being submitted that it fits within that.
And the conditions have, like I said, been accepted by the applicant as well. So just to clarify that as well.
Thanks, David. Patricia.
Yes. That was a good point you brought up there, because if this has got to be if we're passing this,
because we want to have people come into the county and using it as a holiday let's.
And obviously, people that buy these units will do their own holidays and spend time there weekends when they can.
But I do think it's important that any of the restrictions or the agreement that we've got is policed properly so that we know that that is going to be a benefit to the wider economy.
This is just questions. You're straying into debate. How are we going to make sure that that doesn't turn into 104 permanent residents there?
Can you come back on that, Graham?
Of course, Chair. Yeah. Just finding the exact wording of the condition. The purpose of it, Councilor Joplin, is to ensure that they're not permanent occupancy.
You know, in terms of breaching that condition, there's the 10-year enforcement window.
So in theory, someone could occupy for nine years as a residential property, but we would still have powers to cease that and put it back in line with the planning consent.
As is ever, the numbers of conditions and things do just slip my mind in the pressure of the moment.
But yeah, condition 18 purposes shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and no caravan or lodge shall be occupied as a person's sole or main residence.
The operator shall maintain an up-to-date register of all the names of all occupiers and their main home addresses and they should be provided to the local authority when requested.
There's a precis of that condition there. So hopefully that helps.
Yes. Yeah. Yeah.
The condition allows us to do that either spot check or in response to any information that we receive. Thanks.
Thank you. Any further questions before we open the debate?
No. Well, I'll just ask you a direct question, James, as a local member.
Do you wish to contribute at all or have you just done a listening brief?
Thank you, Chair. Yeah. I just would like to say I have supported this development right from the beginning.
Thank you, Chair. Okay. Thank you.
We'll open the debate then. Jim, you'll go first.
Yes, Chair. For me, just the type of application I like to see.
There's very few objections. The benefits outweigh any kind of harm that's been considered.
The benefits of the economy look good.
You start listening to numbers like six million pounds spent on the economy in a year.
That's great for me. One hundred and sixty seven jobs.
All of these things have the right kind of vibration for me.
And I'm quite happy to go along with the officer's recommendation.
Thank you, Jim. We do appreciate that these figures are something that can be thrown at us.
There's no way of proving whether they're true or untrue.
So David, David Boyes. Yeah. Thanks, Chair.
I did have a few concerns about accommodation and occupancy, but I think they have been answered by the planning developers.
In terms of highway safety, you know, I sit on safer, stronger communities,
and we've done a lot of work over the years on trying to make this a lot safer, this road.
I know we had problems with it wasn't necessarily County Durham people having accidents.
It was people coming into the county, a lot of them on motorbikes going through the county.
And I know the county's done a lot to mitigate that.
And the number of serious accidents and fatalities has actually dropped over the years.
So there are far fewer serious accidents and fatalities than there were a few years ago.
Like Jim, possibility of £6 million coming into the county, the jobs aspect.
So if Jim's proposed support for this, I'll second that. I'll second the application.
Was yours a proposal, Jim? Thank you. Jonathan. Jonathan Elmer, please.
Thank you, Chair. I attended a site visit yesterday.
We had a chance to go to the adjacent where the development is proposed.
We also had a chance to drive up the road that sort of goes at the top of the valley,
well, the top of the rise that overlooks the site.
So that was all very useful to get an appreciation as to the landscape perspectives of this development.
There's some really, really positive aspects of the development, first of all.
So obviously I'm really pleased to see that there's biodiversity net gain associated with this,
that hedges have been left intact and that there's actually additional planting going in.
I mean it's always a shame to see the loss of land that could be used for food production,
but this is not the highest quality agricultural land by any stretch.
So I don't think that's a major concern in this with regard to this application at all.
I think that looking at the comments of the landscape team,
they're saying that there's a moderate impact,
but you've got to appreciate that the planting that's being proposed is going to take a bit of time to grow.
So it's trees basically screening the site and that'll take 15, 20 years to grow.
And as they develop that impact, that landscape impact will be gradually mitigated.
So there is an impact, but I'm happy to see that measures have been put in place to try and address that consideration.
So what you've got here is a balance between positives and negatives.
And the positives include in particular the ability to have a major scaled development
that will have a significant beneficial impact in terms of spending in our economy.
And I agree it's hard to quantify exactly what that will be, but it is going to be significant,
because this is a very large development.
So that's really beneficial.
We want to try and find suitable locations for this sort of development within the county,
because it's strategic for the county to try and improve the overall visitor numbers coming into the county.
And this is the place to do it.
The alternatives are other sites potentially that will have a much more significant impact
on areas with much higher landscape value.
Now, this doesn't have any form of landscape designation on the site at all.
So in my view, it's much better to try and target this sort of development at locations like this.
It's still a countryside location, but it's not the highest landscape value that, you know,
it's not as if we're going to impact on a location that's going to then have a knock on effect
on the very things that draw people into the county in the first place.
So pleased to see all of that.
So as I say, I'm very happy to support this development as well and go along with the recommendations that have already been made.
Thank you, Jonathan.
Anybody else?
Alan, I was hoping you would speak.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, and likewise, Jonathan, yourself, we've seen firsthand the application site yesterday.
And just to echo what everybody's saying, I think it is a really good application.
You know, the jobs, the economy.
And I think a big plus that, you know, as the planning department, the authority is supporting such an application.
So it probably was like, you know, in the balance in relation to the location, what have you.
And it's a positive, big positive that the, you know, the case officer, Graham,
himself has like brought this along for approval.
And, you know, it's like Durham's open for business and like a big well done.
That this is coming to committee with a recommendation for approval and I have no hesitation in supporting this application.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Any further member wish to speak?
No.
Well, I'll just have my two penneth before we move on.
I have grave concerns about the highways.
The highways officer has addressed it as per his rules and regulations.
David has added to it.
But it's a very fast road and a very, very busy road.
And I just want to minute those reservations and concerns.
Any loss of life is one loss too many.
And as for Jonathan saying, well, it's all right.
It's not necessarily good agricultural land.
Well, it could be quite easily.
It could be tidied up when growing a crop in the current climate where we may eventually need it.
However, that's my rant over.
It seemed as if the committee is ready to go to the vote.
I've got a mover and a seconder.
All those in favor of the officer's recommendation.
That's unanimous.
Thank you.
And since that's the only item on today's agenda, thank you for your time and just give us a minute for the lads to shut down YouTube.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
