HARROGATE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – AGENDA ITEM 6: LIST OF PLANS. DATE: 1 August 2006
PLAN: 05 CASE NUMBER: 06/01937/FULMAJ GRID REF: EAST 439625 NORTH 475205 APPLICATION NO. 6.23.42.D.FULMAJ DATE MADE VALID: 30.05.2006 TARGET DATE: 29.08.2006 WARD: Wathvale VIEW PLANS AT: http://tinyurl.com/fssvv
APPLICANT: Vimac Leisure LTD
AGENT: Stuart Copeland Associates
PROPOSAL: Erection of 10 detached cabins to provide additional accommodation at Crab Manor Hotel, formation of new access road, parking and landscaping works (Revised Scheme).
LOCATION: Crab And Lobster Public House Asenby York North Yorkshire
REPORT
SITE AND PROPOSAL The application site is located within the landscaped grounds of Crab Manor Hotel Asenby. Crab Manor Hotel is a Grade II listed building that is located at the southern extremity of the village.
The Crab and Lobster public house is located to the north east of the site. The site presently forms a landscaped single golf hole and is bound by mature planting and tree screen. The site is characterised by its undulating topography and occupies an elevated location when viewed from the west.
The applicant seeks planning consent to site 10 log cabins to provide additional accommodation for the hotel. The cabins will be sited around a central access road with a new vehicular access constructed onto the access road serving the village. A new parking area for 9 cars will be provided directly off this new access, which is sited some 25m to the south of the existing entrance serving the hotel. One of the cabins has direct vehicular access and parking (disabled access cabin).
An existing Public Right of Way crosses the site.
MAIN ISSUES 1. Land Use/Principle 2. Visual Impact 3. Treescape 4. Residential Amenity 5. Highway Safety 6. Right Of Way 7. Archaeology
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY The Crab and Lobster/Crab Manor site has a long history of applications. In relation to this application the following are considered relevant:
01/02119/FUL - Retention of staff accommodation as letting rooms with new thatched roof PER 18.06.2001
02/04317/FUL - Conversion of first floor to form additional letting room with formation of dormer window and external side of spiral staircase with balcony REFUSED 11.11.2002
02/05985/FUL - Conversion of first floor Tropical Beach House to form additional letting bedroom. PERMIT 24.02.2003
03/03058/FUL Erection of 2 no detached log cabins to serve as additional letting accommodation REFUSED 23.09.2003 ALLOWED AT APPEAL 18.05.2004
05/04657/FULMAJ Erection of 10 detached cabins for use as short term holiday lets, formation of new access road and parking WITHDRAWN 18.11.2005
CONSULTATIONS/NOTIFICATIONS
Parish Council ASENBY
The British Horse Society No objections
Rambers Association No objection if the footpath is maintained at no worse a diversion than that shown, is not obstructed or made intimidating and is fully and clearly waymarked throughout
NYCC Highway Authority Suggests the imposition of planning conditions
Environmental Health (Springfield) Concern regarding noise disturbance late at night
Yorkshire Water No objection subject to the imposition of conditions
Conservation and Design Section See Assessment
DCS Arboricultural Officer See Assessment
Landscape Officer See Assessment
H.B.C Land Drainage Please consult Yorkshire Water with regard to the proposed discharge of foul sewage and surface water drainage
Policy Dev Unit NYCC No objection subject to an archaeological watching brief
Council for Protection of Rural England No comments received
APPLICATION PUBLICITY SITE NOTICE EXPIRY: 28.07.2006 PRESS NOTICE EXPIRY: 28.07.2006
REPRESENTATIONS
ASENBY PARISH COUNCIL - Object on the following grounds:
The parish council believes there would be an adverse effect and a significant loss of amenity to the village and parish. It would change and affect the appeal of a small, quiet residential village whose primary industry is agriculture. In a statement previously given by the planning department for a previously proposed development opposite this one - "the development would be in a position which shows a distinctive abrupt transition from a small village to open countryside. Such a development would destroy this." The development would in our opinion be detrimental to both the character and the ambience of the village.
The parish council is greatly concerned as to the increased noise which would be generated by the proposed development particularly with outdoor Jacuzzis . We have already had a number of complaints from parishioners regarding disturbance from the existing chalets - guests roaming the village and causing a disturbance late at night. As regards the statement quoting Mary Jones of the environmental health department stating no complaints were received in 2005, this is incorrect as the parish council has copies of correspondence with Ms Jones regarding noise nuisance at the Crab and Lobster in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Traffic levels and parking are a concern, although parking is detailed in the plans received it is felt that is insufficient to accommodate the number of vehicles generated and so the problem of on road parking in inappropriate areas of the village will only increase.
The parish council notes that a new exit is planned, however the village road is very narrow with bad visibility (blind summit hill to the village side and a narrow bend to the other) and the planned exit is too near to the corner and a bus stop which is used by both service and school buses.
The parish council questions the proposed site being a 'brown field' site, and as the proposed development is to be situated in the grounds/gardens of a grade 2 listed building it is felt by all not to be appropriate to the house and an overdevelopment of the property and not in keeping. We would have concerns as to if the proposed development is within the normal curtilege of the village, and if this proposal were granted how many further cabins would be applied for in the future. Furthermore the Parish Council notes that Harrogate Council operates a general presumption against inappropriate brownfield development, and it considers that this application falls within this definition.
The parish council is concerned that a public footpath of the village will be affected by the proposed development and of the damage that will be caused to the remains of a Norman motte and bailey and medieval turf maze, which is an area of local interest.
Drainage - the village drainage system is already at maximum capacity, and complaints regarding the current system have been received from parishioners from all areas of the village.
The parish council would question the number of full time jobs to be created, and the benefit to the parish economy.
The application states in some areas that the cabins are for short term holiday lets and in other areas that they are additional rooms to Crab Manor Hotel. The Parish Council finds this both inconsistent and confusing.
OTHER REPRESENTATIONS - 12 letters received on the following grounds:
1.Unsympathetic to the character, setting and tranquillity of the village. 2.The development is not appropriate within the grounds of a listed building. 3.The site of a medieval turf maze and a Norman motte and bailey would be destroyed. 4.Access is off a sharply curved and narrow village road in close proximity to a bus stop. Increase in traffic movements would be a danger. 5.Increase of parking in and around the village, hazardous to the free flow of traffic in the village. Parking is already a problem when the restaurant is busy. 6.The village drainage and sewerage systems are at full capacity. The proposal will exacerbate the existing problem. 7.Noise, disturbance and loss of amenity to residents. The hot tubs will encourage late night noise. 8.The management of The Crab and Lobster have not been able to control behaviour and noise from existing accommodation and therefore unlikely to do so from further development. 9.Unlikely to generate many local jobs. 10.There may be a demand but in this small village it will have a detrimental impact without any significant benefit. 11.Asenby is a small village surrounded by busy motorways and needs all the buffer green space it presently has. To encroach upon what is a very pleasant approach to the village would be detrimental to the village. 12.Discrepancy as to whether the cabins will be holiday lets or additional bedroom accommodation. 13.Establishment of a holiday village. 14.Extension of the boundary of the village.
In addition a petition containing 124 names has been submitted objecting to the development on the following grounds:
1.The development will cause an increase in traffic into what is a small village. 2.The access to the development is on to a narrow village road and as such could be dangerous. 3.Despite the provision of on-site parking, there would inevitably be an increase in parking in and around the village (this is already a problem when the restaurant is busy). 4.The drainage system in the village is already overloaded form the Crab and Lobster, and many residents suffer from the drainage system. Similarly the over-burdening of the system causes drains in streets such as Jamesville Way to back up and to block. 5.The grounds contain a medieval turf maze and the site of a Norman motte and bailey which could be destroyed by the development. 6.Village residents have already complained on a number of occasions about disturbance from the existing chalets and hot tubs, and also from guests roaming the grounds at night and the early hours of the morning. More chalets would further increase this level of disturbance. 7.The management of the Crab and Lobster has been unable to control behaviour and noise from the existing accommodation, hence it is unlikely it will do so from any other development of accommodation.
VOLUNTARY NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION - None
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY PPS1 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS7 Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG13 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport PPG15 Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment PPG16 Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning PPG21 Planning Policy Guidance 21:Tourism PPG24 Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise SPI6 North Yorkshire County Structure Plan Policy I6 SPR1 North Yorkshire County Structure Plan Policy R1 SPR10 North Yorkshire County Structure Plan Policy R10 SPE5 North Yorkshire County Structure Plan Policy E5 LPTR01 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy TR1: Visitor Accommodation LPA01 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy A1: Impact on the Environment and Amenity LPC15 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy C15: Conservation of Rural Areas not in Green Belt LPC02 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy C2: Landscape Character LPC05 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy C5: Woodland and Forestry LPC11 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy C11: Landscaping of Development Sites LPHD01 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HD1: Statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest LPHD04 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HD4: Development affecting Archaeological Sites LPHD13 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HD13: Trees and Woodlands LPHD16 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HD16: Approaches to Settlements LPHD20 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HD20: Design of New Development and Redevelopment LPR11 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy R11: Rights of Way LPNC04 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy NC4: Semi-Natural Habitats LPTR04 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy TR4: Camping and Caravan Development - Site Characteristics
ASSESSMENT OF MAIN ISSUES 1. LAND USE/PRINCIPLE - The proposed development represents the extension of visitor accommodation at an established hotel site. The site of the cabins is located outside the main built up confines of the village and although relating to the settlements is considered to lie within a countryside location.
Within the countryside existing land uses are expected to remain for th emost part undisturbed , unless development is appropriate to a rural area or inter alia contributes to the rural economy and complies with tourism policies of the local plan.
Harrogate District Local Plan (HDLP) Policy TR1 is permissive to the extension and improvement of existing serviced accommodation where ,inter alia there would be no adverse effect on visual or residential amenity; there would be no detrimental impact on road safety and free flow of traffic on the adjacent highway; the development is compatible with its surroundings in terms of siting, scale activity, design , materials and landscaping; the development accords with all other relevant policies of the plan. Similar restrictions apply to proposals for holiday chalet development under Policy TR4. Whilst not strictly holiday chalet accommodation, the development clearly has similar characteristics, albeit attached to the existing hotel accommodation.
The site is within the grounds of a listed building and hence HDLP Policy HD1 requires an assessment regarding the impact of the development upon the character, fabric and setting of the building.
HDLP Policies HD4 and HD5 amplify Structure Plan E5, which seeks to protect sites of archaeological importance.
HDLP Policy R11 seeks to ensure that development would not harm the character or recreational and amenity value of the existing right of way.
2. VISUAL IMPACT - The site lies at the southern most edge of the village of Asenby close to the A168 (T). The undulating landform to the south is generally open where large fields are the result of the amalgamation of smaller enclosures resulting in the removal of hedgerows.
The proposal site is positioned on a low-lying ridge on the River Swale's southern side with minor undulations rising above the ridgeline. The site is characterised by its prominent topography. A knoll of higher ground is located at the southern end with ground falling away to the south and the north. A second higher area is located to the northwest along a short ridge where the ground rises to approximately 33m AOD to from a second knoll. Whilst distinctive these landforms are natural. Although in most cases the lodges will be situated in areas of lower ground, which use the natural topography, at the south-western end of the site two of the lodges (6 and 7) are situated on the higher knoll, cut across the slope and would be highly visible (if the eastern belt of existing trees were to be removed). Lodge 5 on the eastern side will also be raised and constructed entirely on fill material.
The proposals have no regard for the need to provide early screen planting of the site, conversely the scheme proposes large-scale removal of black poplar along the east boundary. The proposal is to pollard the black poplar screen (now growing up to 22m high) to 6-8m high leaving a post-pollarded trunk devoid of any lower vegetation. The proposal also recommends the lowering of the natural hedge to a height of 3m.This will cause a fundamental 'opening up' of the site to surrounding views without regard for interim screening to mitigate the development proposed.
The poplars form part of a substantial tree belt providing protection to the southern eastern end of the site. The tree belt also protects the village from the impacts of the A168 (T). The Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment (February 2004) specifically states the following aims: to promote appropriate tree planting to limit the impact of the A168 as it passes through the area.
Much of the character of the local area is derived from trees and woodland, and the vegetation surrounding the site forms part of a strategic woodland corridor continuing from woodland at North Fields. At this point the proposals would sever this natural link. This area of woodland represents only a small portion of land-use in the village but collectively provides a valuable component of the village boundary.
The grade II listed building (formerly known as Asenby Lodge) makes a positive contribution to the vernacular quality on the approaches to the village of Asenby. The garden area affected although some distance away from the listed building is considered to form part of this street scene and the setting of the building. The new access road required within 40m of the furthest lodge will fundamentally change the character of the gardens.
The setting of the listed building has already to some extent been compromised by its conversion and various alterations within the grounds. Nevertheless, the view of the garden looking south from the hotel or from the gardens looking towards the hotel, remains an attractive one and should not be further compromised by the proposal.
Whilst it is accepted that some of the cabins are concealed by dips in the ground, others will be much more prominent and visually intrusive from the hotel. The proposed access road and particularly the turning head will appear as an essentially incongruous and suburban feature in the garden. Similarly the new exit will impinge adversely on the garden and on the present attractive approach to the village. It is stated by the Conservation and Design Officer that 'as the original garden of the listed building, I feel that its existing character merits preservation as being part of its setting, notwithstanding that the latter is no longer a private residence. I feel that the proposal would change this existing character to such a degree as to be unacceptable'.
On the basis of the above concern is expressed that the development would have a clear adviser impact on the visual amenity and landscape character of the area together with the setting of the listed building.
3. TREESCAPE - The application is supported by an arboricultural report, however concern is expressed by the councils arboricultural officer regarding the maintenance and care of the trees on the site. The arboricultural officer re-iterates the concern regarding the loss of the poplar trees on the eastern boundary which would destroy the existing screen to that side of the site.
4. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY - The comments of local residents have been noted regarding potential noise disturbance from the addition of further cabins on the site and in particular the late night use of hot tubs. The chief environmental health officer also raises this concern and reports that there have been periodic complaints regarding noise from music and events at the premises but accepts that the existing tub is shut at a reasonable time. It is commented that by virtue of the design of the facilities it may be more difficult to control the individual useage of the hot tubs and that this may give rise to disturbance particularly late at night. Whilst noise disturbance is clearly capable of being a planning consideration, much of the impact is also a management issue of the hotel itself.
5. HIGHWAY SAFETY - The applicants propose the construction of a new access to serve the site. The highway authority have been consulted and comment that in order to maintain a continuous footpath along the site frontage to the village street, the access should be constructed with a splayed crossing and not with radii as shown.
Subject to the above and ensuring that the public right of way across the site is maintained clear of obstruction at all times, the highway authority have no objection to the development subject to the imposition of conditions.
6. RIGHT OF WAY - The existing right of way crosses the site in an east/west direction. A small section of the route crosses the existing garden area. The construction of the new access and cabins will clearly alter the character of the route resulting in further harm. It is however noted that neither the ramblers or British Horse Society/Harrogate Bridleways association object to the development provided that the footpath is maintained at no worse a diversion than that shown, is not obstructed or made intimidating and is fully and clearly waymarked throughout.
On this basis and despite the adverse impact over a short section of the route an objection could not be substantiated under the provisions of HDLP Policy R11.
7. ARCHAEOLOGY - The application is accompanied with an archaeological assessment. The report concludes that potential for remains of a turf maze is low, but nevertheless there is some potential for archaeological survival. Mitigation in the form of a phase watching brief is recommended and supported by the Heritage Section of North Yorkshire County Council.
The watching brief may be secured by the attachment of a condition. Such an approach would be in accordance with the provisions of PPG16 on Archaeology and Planning and HDLP Policy HD5.
CONCLUSION - HDLP Policy TR1 is supportive in principle to the extension of existing of serviced accommodation subject to meeting 5 identified criteria.
In consideration of this proposal, it has been demonstrated that the development would have an adverse impact upon visual amenity, landscape character and the setting of a listed building. Further concern is expressed regarding potential late night noise disturbance from use of the hot tubs, although this may be controlled by restrictions on use and management of the complex itself.
The proposed development would result in the loss of existing landscape features of amenity value due to the loss of a substantial tree belt and hence would be in conflict with HDLP Policy C11. The resultant harm would have a significant adverse impact on the existing woodland area through loss of trees and undergrowth in a manner contrary to HDLP Policies HD13 and C5, whilst opening up the site to both short and medium distance views where some of the chalets would be seen as prominent features in the landscape.
The lack of adequate landscaping , screening and landscape mitigation against the visual impacts of the development would conflict with HDLP Policy HD20 and C11.
The introduction of the chalets and access road within the garden area of the listed building would adversely effect the setting of the building in a manner contrary to HDLP Policy HD1.
Given the strong landscape objection and adverse impact upon both visual amenity and setting of the listed building it is concluded that the development fails to meet the provisions of HDLP Policy TR1 (and TR4).
Whilst it is recognised that the scheme may generate additional employment opportunities, this would not in itself be sufficient to set aside the harmful impact s of the development and refusal of the application is recommended.
CASE OFFICER: Mr A Hough
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be REFUSED. Reason(s) for refusal:-
1 The proposed development would as a consequence of its design siting and removal of landscape features have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity and landscape character of the locality which lies in a prominent location on the approach to the village. The resultant development fails to meet the objectives of Harrogate District Local Plan Policies C5, C11, HD13 and HD20 and is therefore contrary to the provisions of Harrogate District Local Plan Policy TR1. 2 The proposed development would as a consequence of its design siting and associated infrastructure adversely affect the setting of a Grade II listed building and would as a consequence be contrary to the provisions of Harrogate District Local plan Policy HD1.