Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: 2/13/0283 Erection of a 31 unit serviced apart-hotel (C1 Use Class) FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : and associated access, car parking, landscaping and engineering works NAME OF APPLICANT : Mr Harry Johnson Plawsworth Hall Farm, Wheatley Well Lane, Plawsworth, ADDRESS : Chester-le-Street, Durham, DH2 3LD ELECTORAL DIVISION : Kimblesworth and Plawsworth Steve France Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : Telephone: 03000 264871 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

1. Plawsworth Hall is an existing, established apart-hotel business in the village of Plawsworth, a small settlement adjacent the A167 between Durham City and Chester- le-Street. The village, a designated Conservation Area, is an attractive settlement that has grown up comparatively recently around three traditional farm groups. Reflecting this, the village is a mix of traditional and modern dwellings, wholly residential, with no commercial or community facilities other than the applicants. Both the older and newer parts of the village are covered by a Conservation Area designation, with a small buffer around it into the countryside, extending from the A167 in the west, to the fields surrounding Plawsworth Hall Farm in the east. The surrounding countryside, including the site, is designated Green Belt. A single road runs east/west through the village, which is set on elevated ground, with expansive views to the east and north in particular. With two dwellings detached from the settlement, 80m to the east of Plawsworth Farm, the elevated main farmhouse of the application site sits prominently on modern retaining walls to form the natural end of the village, doing much to contribute to it’s traditional appearance.

2. The built elements of the business that form the apart-hotel - effectively cottages and apartments that are serviced like a hotel - are sited in an arrangement reflective of a farm group to the rear of the traditional farmhouse, in a range of styles and materials that sit comfortably in mix of properties in the village. Three mature trees front the site from a lawned area, which is impeccably maintained, with the hotel subtly signed – the accommodation does not have the appearance of a business, and sits unobtrusively within the village. The hotel offers a diverse client base high quality short term rental accommodation, to contracting companies and longer staying business guests, along with holiday accommodation to guests ranging from families using Plawsworth as their base, to those visiting friends and relatives. The well-established business has strong links with significant investors in the County. 3. This application proposes a significant extension of the business to create an additional 31 units on the an area of countryside immediately adjacent the existing site. Following extensive pre-submission discussions, the new development is proposed to the north of the existing business, to preserve the existing entrance to the village and to use the landform to minimise the wider visual impacts of this large scheme. The scheme has been designed to appear as a logical extension of the existing farm group set out as a series of courtyards with individual character areas, with a mix of traditional and contemporary styles and materials. The development is designed to use the landform to sit under the existing hotel buildings, to both retain their amenity, and to minimise the visual impact on the public domain – the existing skyline of the village remains unaffected, with strengthened and reintroduced landscape features helping integrate the buildings into the landscape setting.

4. The application is reported to Committee both as a major development and as a departure from the local plan.

PLANNING HISTORY

5. Since establishment in 1994, the building has extended and grown through development of new, additional units in 1998, 2003 and 2008, along with a small conversion in 2006, making up the current compliment of 27 units comprising cottages and apartments of between one and three bedrooms in size.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY :

National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012

6. In March 2012 the Government consolidated all planning policy statements, circulars and guidance into a single policy statement, termed the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message from the Framework is that planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core principles’ that should underpin both plan-making and decision taking, these being; empowering local people to shape their surroundings, proactively drive and support economic development, ensure a high standard of design, respect existing roles and character, support a low carbon future, conserve the natural environment, encourage re-use of previously developed land, promote mixed use developments, conserve heritage assets, manage future patterns of growth and take account of and support local strategies relating to health, social and cultural well- being.

7. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy – reinforces the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth to create jobs and prosperity, ensuring the planning system supports this aim – ‘significant weight’ is to be placed on this aim. Planning policies should seek to address potential barriers to investment, setting out clear economic vision and strategy which proactively encourages sustainable economic growth, identifies sites and inward investment, and identifies priority areas for economic regeneration. There is no specific advice on decision making.

8. NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Rural Economy – Requires planning policies to support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development, supporting all types of business and enterprise, promoting development and diversification of agricultural and rural business and supporting tourism and leisure activities that benefit rural businesses, communities and visitors whilst respecting the character of the countryside.

9. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. Notes the importance of transport policies in facilitating sustainable development and contributing to wider sustainability and health issues. Local parking standards should take account of the accessibility of the development, its type, mix and use, the availability of public transport, levels of local car ownership and the need to reduce the use of high-emission vehicles.

10. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design. The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning policies and decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.

11. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities – the planning system is considered to have an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities, delivering social recreational and cultural facilities and services to meet community needs. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.

12. NPPF Part 9 – Green Belts. The five purposes of Green Belt land are set out thus; to check unrestricted urban sprawl, to prevent towns coalescing, to safeguard the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and character of historic towns and to assist urban regeneration. Planning Authorities are required to ensure substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, with ‘very special circumstances’ required to over-ride Green belt policies.

13. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognizing the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land.

14. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. Working from Local Plans that set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, Local Planning Authorities should require applicants to describe the significance of the heritage asset affected to allow an understanding of the impact of a proposal on it’s significance. In determining applications LPAs should take account of; the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the asset and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation, the positive contribution conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and economic viability, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character. Opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas that enhance or better reveal their significance should be treated favourably, acknowledging that not all elements of a Conservation Area contribute to its significance.

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

The Chester le Street District Local Plan, October 2003 (saved 2009)

15. Policy NE2 – Development beyond settlement boundaries – outside of settlement limits development will be strictly controlled. Development should protect and enhance the character of the countryside and be consistent with maintaining the economic sustainability of agriculture and other rural businesses.

16. Policy NE4 – Appropriate development in the Green Belt - seeks to control appropriate development in the Green Belt, restricting the construction of new buildings to; agricultural and forestry uses, sport, recreation and other uses that preserve Green Belt openness, proposals for the limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings, the reuse or conversion of existing buildings and mineral extraction.

17. Policy NE6 – Development affecting the Visual Amenity of the Green Belt – Development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt will not be granted where the proposal by virtue of its scale, siting, materials or design is detrimental to the visual amenity of such.

18. Policy BE4 – Development in Conservation Areas – new development in or adjacent Conservation Areas must; respect the character of the area, must not generate excessive traffic and must not affect its setting.

19. Policy TM3 – New Tourist Accommodation – New visitor accommodation in the countryside will be limited to the conversion of existing buildings or extensions to existing accommodation, providing they are compatible with other relevant policies in the plan.

20. Policy T15 – Access and Safety provisions in design – Development should have safe access to classified road, should not create high levels of traffic exceeding the capacity of the local road network, have adequate links to public transport, with consideration for cyclists and service vehicles and emergency vehicles.

21. Policy T17 – General Policy – All new developments should have regard to and be consistent with the provision of a safe and accessible transport network, in particular through reducing reliance on the private car, encouraging the use of public transport and promoting cycling and walking.

EMERGING POLICY:

The County Durham Plan, Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan, Oct. 2013

22. The emerging County Durham Plan is now in Pre-Submission Draft form, having been the subject of a recent 8 week public consultation, and is due for submission in Spring 2014, ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. To this end, the following policies contained in the Pre- Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:

23. Policy 1 – Sustainable Development, sets out a presumption in favour of such through 18 subsections including directing economic growth to existing centres, protecting agricultural land, promoting inclusive and healthy communities, achieving well designed accessible places, making the most effective use of land, and conserving the quality diversity and distinctiveness of the County including the conservation and enhancement of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

24. Policy 14 – Green Belt, states the construction of new buildings within the designation is regarded as inappropriate and will not be permitted. The list of standard exceptions is set out.

25. Policy 16 – Sustainable Design in the Built Environment sets out 17 elements required for development to be permitted, including the need for development to positively contribute to an area’s character, identity, townscape and landscape features and to promote diversity and choice through the delivery of a balanced mix of compatible buildings.

26. Policy 18 – Local Amenity states that permission will only be granted for proposals providing it can be shown that a significant adverse impact on amenity would not occur including, for example, loss of light and privacy, visual intrusion, overlooking, noise and odour. In addition to this, permission will not be granted for sensitive land uses where suitable mitigation measures cannot be put in place to rectify the adverse impact on amenity.

27. Policy 19 – Air Quality, Light and Noise Pollution – Planning applications likely to lead to significant noise pollution must include information to assess likely impacts, and follow a standard mitigation hierarchy, all development must seek to minimise light pollution, particularly around countryside, likewise all development will be expected to prevent unacceptable levels of noise pollution. Permission will not be granted where these issues have an unacceptable effect on existing land uses.

28. Policy 28 – Visitor Accommodation – All new visitor accommodation or extensions to existing visitor accommodation will be permitted where; appropriate to the scale and character of the area, it does not have a significant adverse impact on the County’s valuable built or heritage assets, and that occupation does not exceed 9 months in a calendar year for any individual or group. Where in the countryside they will also be permitted where for example; a rural location is needed to meet identified visitor needs or it is an extension of existing visitor accommodation that helps support future business viability, amongst other criteria.

29. Policy 35 – Development in the Countryside, states that this will only be permitted where they accord with other policies in the plan, and with one or more of a number of exceptions including; being necessary for the viable operation of agriculture, where the proposal demonstrates it will directly support the enhancement of local services, community facilities and infrastructure, where environmental or tourism assets are enhanced, or in the case of a change of use of a heritage asset or other disused structure, demonstrates a viable sustainable economic use, does not require substantial rebuilding or extension, is in keeping with and enhances its setting, and has no significant impact on neighbours.

30. Policy 39 – Landscape Character prevents new development where it would cause significant harm to the character, quality or distinctiveness of the landscape or important features or views. 31. Policy 41 – Biodiversity and Geo-diversity - New development will not be permitted if significant harm to bio-diversity cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or as a last resort, compensated for.

32. Policy 44 – Historic Environment requires development to conserve the fabric, character, setting and cultural significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets, with an approach proportionate to the significance of non-designated assets.

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

33. As a private, non-residential development, Highways Engineers have raised no objection to the scheme’s access or proposed parking and servicing arrangements, or to the effect of additional traffic on the wider transport network.

34. English Heritage do not have any comments to offer.

35. The Environment Agency have no comments on the application.

36. The Coal Authority raise no objections to the proposals.

37. Northumbrian Water note the relevant Sewage treatment works for the development is currently at full capacity, but once a scheme to remove surface water from the network is complete, the flows expected from the development can be accommodated. Occupation of the scheme is requested conditioned to the completion of these works. This issue has been discussed between the applicants and the Statutory Undertaker.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

38. The Spatial Policy Section note that the site lies outside the settlement boundary for Plawsworth, and in the Green Belt, countryside and partly within the Conservation Area.

39. The response notes that in most cases housing development in the countryside is contrary to the aims of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan, except in exceptional circumstances where very special circumstances such as a proved and justified association with a business or where of exceptional design quality – these aims set out in Policies NE2, NE3, NE4 and NE5.

40. The latest draft of the County Local Plan maintains the Green Belt around Plawsworth, with Policy 14 setting out the exclusions consistent with the previous Policy and the NPPF. The scheme would not accord with this Policy. Policy 28 sets out a positive position for considering visitor accommodation in the countryside where, amongst other things, it is appropriate in scale and character to the area, and where it is in close proximity to existing services.

41. The NPPF states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, except where very special circumstances exist – a list of these being set out as; buildings for agriculture or forestry, provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and recreation as long as the openness of the Green Belt is preserved, the extension or alteration of a building that is not disproportionate compared to the existing, the replacement of a building with one of similar size, limited infilling in villages, limited infilling or redevelopment of previously developed land. Spatial Policy Officers state that ‘clearly the proposal would not constitute an exceptional case in NPPF terms and conflicts with the aims of the framework on these grounds’. The site is acknowledged as performing reasonably well in sustainability terms in proximity to the Arnison Centre, noting these facilities are some distance away. The proposed use would mean that as visitors, occupants would be reliant on the car for most trips. The existing business is within the village and included the conversion of existing buildings. Notwithstanding the above concerns, the benefits of the scheme to the local economy through the provision of this style of visitor accommodation is acknowledged. The scheme would also provide economic benefits to the local economy, which is a material consideration in accordance with the Localism Act. On balance however, for Policy Officers, the proposal is not considered acceptable in principle, despite the benefits.

42. Business Durham have reviewed all of the documentation on the business case for the development and met with the applicants on site, and with their adviser and Durham County Council planning colleagues for an office based meeting to establish the following: • Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the economic impacts the development will bring to the local economy • Whether the expansion is planned in a sound financial manner

43. The main issue is considered the potential impact the development may have on the countryside and Conservation Area, with Business Durham noting their comments are restricted to the economic benefits the development would bring.

44. The current operation at Plawsworth Hall Farm was established in 1994. The current development of 27 cottages and apartments is of a very high quality, with Enjoy England Quality in Tourism 4 star accreditation, the business located on the fringe of the village. It is situated very close to the major road and transport networks, only minutes from the A1 and A167, linking the County with neighbouring cities and towns, namely Durham and Chester-le-Street.

45. The business has on average 90% occupancy for the majority of its operating year, turning many visitors away at the peak periods. The current client base is diverse ranging from families using Plawsworth as their holiday accommodation base, or short term rental for visiting friends and relatives or contracting companies, to the longer staying business guests, and according to evidence formulated from the project assessment via the Visit County Durham ATMAP process, this demonstrates that the development has a strong sustainable future. Its attraction is the peaceful setting, coupled with the high quality accommodation and the customer service if offers to each guest.

46. Financially, the current business plan and unaudited accounts outlines a healthy and sound business operation. The plan highlights the economies of scale generated from the proposed expansion of the business and the more efficient use of established resources, which will result in an increase in the profitability of the business. Most of the running costs for the new extension would be covered by the current operation. The company remains in profit, forming a sound basis for which to apply for a further loan from their current lender. The business currently employs 12 staff (5.58 full time equivalents) and the extension to the current operation will create an extra 75 hours of work per week, equating to an extra 2 full time jobs. In addition to the jobs created on site, according to the supporting evidence provided by the applicants consultant, GVA Grimley, it is forecast that there will be significant additional jobs and revenue generated in the local supply chain, from the temporary jobs at construction stage, to the current local suppliers and businesses who have a well-established relationship with the business.

47. Business Durham have been convinced that the current site is the only one that can be developed for the business to meet the needs of its customers unique in its offer, capitalising on the economies scale via the cost and provision of staff on site, the additional personal service provision for guests and the purchase of local goods and services from existing local suppliers. In light of the evidence presented above, Business Durham supports the scheme due to the economic benefits that it will bring to County Durham.

48. The County Ecologist has no issues with the scheme, with no part of the works that would require a protected species license from Natural England..

49. Design and Conservation advice assesses the scheme in the context of the impact of the proposal on the character, appearance and significance of the Plawsworth Conservation Area, as a ‘designated heritage asset’. The farm group consists of a series of converted properties and modern infill used for holiday let accommodation. The scheme has a fairly traditional style in keeping with the general character of the Conservation Area, situated on adjacent open land that allows distant views to the north and east. The design has been subject to extensive pre-submission discussions to achieve a satisfactory design and minimize impacts on the Conservation Area and Landscape setting. The scheme as submitted is generally in accord with these discussions.

50. Both the direct effect of the scheme on Conservation Area is important, along with the prominence of the proposals within the landscape and in views in and out of the Conservation Area. The buildings have been deliberately positioned in a sunken area to the north of the existing accommodation complex to minimize visual impact, and sit the proposal lower than existing buildings when viewed from the north and east, and are designed to reflect local character and appearance, therefore designed and positioned to be viewed as a natural progression to the existing. This effect is proposed enhanced by strengthening of existing boundary treatments and the reinstatement of a historic hedge-line. The buildings would be visible in some views including from the A167, and more so in winter. The most prominent elevations of the buildings would exhibit traditional design and materials, with more contemporary approaches on internal elevations, the design ethos focused on replicating a ‘stable block’ and plinth walling, a strong feature of the existing site.

51. The site is noted as within Green Belt, and part of an important Green Buffer to the north of the village. The loss of this open area is regrettable and a key consideration for the planning assessment. However the design and landscaping of the proposed development is carefully considered and would relate well to the existing Plawsworth Hall Farm, the local vernacular and the character of the Conservation Area, with minimal long and short distance views in and out of the site. Appropriate conditions are suggested.

52. Landscape Officers note the site as in a prominent location in countryside to the east of Plawsworth Village, and its assessment within the County Durham Landscape Character Assessment. The scheme is acknowledged as having evolved positively in response to pre-application advice, and is submitted with a formal landscape strategy and landscape assessment, which illustrates the limited visual impact. The landscaping and planting scheme proposed both screens the site and adds character. The result is a limited adverse effect on the Conservation Area and its setting - with the Green Belt issues noted as an in-principle ‘planning’ decision. Avoiding significant landscape or visual impacts from public receptors, Landscape Officers feel able to support the proposals. Standard conditions are suggested.

53. Whilst the Sustainability Officer has made representation, the locational comments in regard to sustainability appear to be based on a residential development assessment (commenting on access to schools, for example). The sustainability checklist submitted with the application is however considered generally comprehensive, albeit suggestions are made for additional elements. The standard condition for this topic is referred. No objection is offered.

54. The County Archaeologist recommends a site visit to establish whether there is evidence of ridge and furrow and if so, that a condition be attached to ensure this is properly recorded.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

55. The application has been advertised both as a ‘major’ proposal, and as a departure from the local plan. Advertisements have been put in the local press, notices attached to street furniture fronting the site, at the west entrance to the village and in the layby on the A167, along with the standard direct mail letter to those properties nearest and potentially most affected by the development and the site entrance.

56. Member of Parliament Kevan Jones supports the proposals, having met the applicant and being impressed with both the existing and proposed operations on site. He comments that the applicant has worked hard to establish a good reputation for Plawsworth Hall and has developed strong links with organisations such as Nissan and Durham County Cricket Club. As a successful business in his constituency, the Member of Parliament is happy to support the application.

57. The two Ward Members have canvassed opinions in the village and have asked that these views be conveyed to the Committee. The Ward Members themselves have withdrawn their initial support for the scheme. The canvassed concerns are as set out below:

58. Allowing the building on Green Belt land or in the Conservation Area will set a precedent for other developments, with the scheme considered to change the fundamental nature of the village - the size of the development is contended larger than Plawsworth Village, the disparate design will look out of place next to the indigenous design and will cause light pollution, distracting users of the A167. There is concern that the stated 90% capacity is not accurate, and what will happen if the expected custom doesn’t materialise, with potential for change of use to residential dwellings. Local drainage capacity is queried.

59. Opinion is offered that the area is saturated with holiday lets and temporary accommodation, giving examples of The Red Lion Hotel, Church Mouse Travel Lodge, Pity Me Premier Inn, The Lambton Arms Hotel, The Lambton Hounds Inn, Lumley Castle Hotel, self-catering farm house at Ramside Hall, along with other self-catering properties near Chester le Street. The monitoring of the impact of tourism on the village is queried.

60. Objectors worry the development poses potential threats to many nearby natural areas and will lead to impacts such as: soil erosion, increased pollution, natural habitat loss and pressure on wildlife, with habitat degraded by holiday guests leisure activities, their noise, sewage, use of footpaths, straying from paths and littering.

61. The passing trade of customers staying at the holiday village on a temporary basis will make it difficult for the village residents to preserve their local community, impacting on the peacefulness of the village and the quality of life of the residents who have invested in the unique hamlet of Plawsworth Village.

62. Five letters of objection have been received from individual correspondents whose concerns reflect those outlined above. Additional points include; the argument that the scheme will support the surrounding economy being flawed, as there are no surrounding services, and that there is an oversupply of recent developments in the village including farm conversions and The Cyrenians.

63. Kimblesworth and Plawsworth Parish Council object to the increase in traffic, the overpopulation of holiday/hotel accommodation in the area, the existing transient elements of the village population at the Cyrenians being added to, and an adequate existing supply of holiday accommodation in the area.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

64. Since diversifying from farming in the early 1990s. Plawsworth Hall has emerged as a thriving rural business. By providing niche, yet increasingly popular serviced cottages and apartments in the former agricultural village of Plawsworth. Having experience exceptionally high occupancy rates over more than 15 years. The applicant wishes to grow the business by developing a site immediately adjacent to the existing units. We believe that this site is the only viable place in which the business can expand. Alternative sites would effectively be setting up a completely independent business, rather than the logical extension proposed. This extension will benefit from the excellent reputation, services, and staff already in place at Plawsworth Hall. High land costs and the need for costly duplication of services mean that other sites are unrealistic alternatives.

66. The applicant undertook significant pre-application discussions with technical officers at the Council to identify the most suitable location for the development at Plawsworth Hall given the Green Belt location. This aimed to ensure that the layout and design would minimise the actual effect on the landscape, Conservation Area and Green Belt. Following a lengthy iterative process the proposals the applicant welcomes the Council’s technical officers acceptance of how the proposals work with the surrounding countryside, Conservation Area and broader character of the Village.

67. The applicant has also demonstrated that there are very special circumstances that support the proposals which are considered to outweigh the minimised potential harm to the Green Belt. The applicant has demonstrated that there will be significant economic benefits through the construction and operation of the site. These will include new jobs at the site and in the local supply chains where the applicant is committed to continuing to use local businesses to support Plawsworth Hall.

68. The applicant has engaged with Visit County Durham through the AtMap process which is designed to help refine and assess tourism proposals in Durham and it considered the proposals to be a Level 1 project which is the highest level that could be achieved. Visit County Durham consider the development will meet an identified need for serviced accommodation in the area. Significantly, the Council’s Business Development Manager for the area, along with the Red Lion Public House in Plawsworth also support the economic benefits of the proposals to the local area.

69. The applicant would also note that the existing business has co-existed with the Village successfully for almost 20 years and there is no reason to suspect that the extension will create any amenity issues in the Village. The applicant is keen to protect and enhance the Village environment of Plawsworth and sought input from local residents on the proposals through a consultation process in July 2013. No objections were raised in the feedback process suggesting there were any concerns about amenity or disruption to the Village.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

70. As identified in Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the key consideration in the determination of a planning application is the development plan. Applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Whilst, as with all large planning applications there are a number of inter-linked issues to be addressed, the consideration of this application can be summarised on two main issues – is the development acceptable in principle against the requirements of Green Belt and Conservation Area Policies, and does the development result in unreasonable ‘harm’ to the Green Belt, the Conservation Area, or the existing village.

Development in the Green Belt

71. In 2012 the Government set out its strategic vision for ‘planning’, synthesising the then 25 Planning Policy Statements into a single document, with 12 areas of specialist advice set within an overarching requirement for all development to be ‘sustainable’. Some of the areas of advice, such as that for planning in the countryside, were reduced to a single paragraph, with advice solely for plan-making. One of the longer, and more prescriptive parts of the document is that relating to Green Belts, reflecting to some degree their contention in the planning process. The advice is reflective of the previous guidance, setting out the five purposes of a Green Belt; • to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas • to prevent neighbouring towns merging • to safeguard the countryside from encroachment • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns • and to encourage recycling of previously developed urban land The essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and permanence, and by definition new development in a Green Belt is considered harmful. New development is allowed only in ‘very special circumstances’. Two paragraphs of the NPPF advise Local Authorities on this issue, advising that substantial weight must be given to potential harm to the Green Belt, and that ‘special circumstances’ will not exist unless the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. This approach is reflected both in the existing development plan against which the application must be considered, and the emerging plan which is beginning to accrue some material weight in planning decisions. The relevant local plan policies are set out above.

72. A consistent range of standard exceptions to the Green Belt restriction is set out in both the NPPF and local plan policies; including buildings for forestry and agriculture, provision for outdoor sport, extensions of existing buildings, replacement of existing buildings, limited infill in villages, or limited redevelopment of previously developed land. None are relevant to this application. In principle therefore, as a large new development in Green Belt designated land, the proposal is ‘harmful’, and contrary to Green Belt Policy. It is not one of the exceptions set out in the NPPF. The issue therefore is whether the proposal comes with ‘very special circumstances’ that ‘clearly’ outweigh the reasons for this significant policy restriction. The proposal seeks to do this in two ways – firstly, and primarily, by setting out a case that there is an overriding economic case that can be balanced against, and outweigh the restriction, in line with the requirements of new development in sustainability terms, both on a local and national level, and secondly by addressing the site specific issues, mitigating how it affects ‘openness’, using as a starting point the five purposes of a Green Belt. If the application does not successfully address the first successfully, the second is irrelevant.

73. The ‘very special circumstances’ offered against the Green Belt Policies are the economic benefits of a scheme that requires it to operate in this location. Members will be aware that the definition of sustainability in the NPPF is made up of three dimensions – economic, social and environmental. From a presumption in favour of sustainable development, the lead policy in the document sets out government’s commitment to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, with planning operating so as to encourage growth, not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. The advice for supporting a prosperous rural economy sets out that sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside, should be supported through plans – and then decision making. Policy 28 of the emerging local plan, which considers new visitor accommodation, is consistent with this approach, noting that it will be permitted where a rural location is needed to meet identified visitor needs or it is an extension of existing visitor accommodation that helps support future business viability. For this development, whilst the headline figures of two new full-time-equivalent (FTE) new jobs created may be questioned as providing the required clear very special circumstances, the development of the existing business and the benefits to the supply chain that formally supports the hotel, these businesses both within the immediate vicinity, and to attractions within the County generally is considered material to the consideration. The specialist assessment contained in the response of Business Durham (above) which includes the processes of Visit County Durham is considered key to this part of the determination – having considered the forecast of significant additional jobs and revenue generated in the local supply chain, from the temporary jobs at construction stage, to the current local suppliers and businesses who have a well-established relationship with the business, this consultee has been ‘convinced that the current site is the only one that can be developed for the business to meet the needs of its customers unique in its offer, capitalising on the economies scale via the cost and provision of staff on site, the additional personal service provision for guests and the purchase of local goods and services from existing local suppliers’. Therefore, rather than the headline 2no. FTE jobs, the applicant has submitted evidence in the form of the ‘Economic Impacts of Plawsworth Hall’ which identifies the following economic benefits: the creation of 55 temporary FTE jobs during construction; additional expenditure within the local economy of £7.7m whilst the works take place; the creation of 25 FTE jobs once operational; and the creation of an additional £2.2m of expenditure per annum within the wider economy whilst operational. Considering this evidence, Business Durham support the scheme due to the economic benefits that it will bring to County Durham’. The scheme is accepted as meeting an identified shortfall identified by Visit County Durham, who support the scheme in principle as having great potential to ‘enhance the tourism product ‘ within the County. This assessment addresses some of the concerns raised by local residents.

74. The unique nature of the business referred to here is therefore key to consideration. Objectors contend that surrounding leisure accommodation providers, whether at individual premises or as part of national hotel chains already adequately cover accommodation needs in the area. Both in the nature of its accommodation, and the target clientele, Plawsworth Hall has established a niche not generally or specifically met by these other businesses. The nature of this niche and the siting of the business are interlinked in terms of the targeted market sector. This specific nature of the business is one of the reasons why officers accept that there is an economic reason for the business to expand onto this specific site, and why the arguments for the development could potentially be accepted as ‘very special circumstances’, and not repeated elsewhere. An additional implication to this aspect is the perception of the County business visitors accrue of Durham as a business destination from this facility set in an attractive environment, with excellent transport links to employment and tourism opportunities both within the County and in nearby conurbations. It is further noted that the economic benefits of the scheme, proposed by and existing, successful business, underlies the Member of Parliament’s support for the proposals.

75. Also material to the degree of weight given to the economic justifications argued to outweigh the Green Belt principle are the corporate objectives of the County Council in seeking to drive economic investment and regeneration in the County, the ‘altogether wealthier’ objective.

76. In terms of the five purposes of Green Belt, the proposal contradicts one – safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, which leads reasonably to the question as to why the developer has identified this particular site. Within the submitted planning statement, the applicant details historic consideration of other sites that have been potentially available within the village, and have put further work into showing that sites in alternate locations would not have been viable. One of the drivers for the layout of the design in economic terms, at the heart of the business plan, is a consistent, linked, modular form of layout that allows for efficient linked servicing. Both the size of the sites potentially available within the village, and their being detached from the main operation were reasons against their being pursued. In terms of finding a site away from the village, neither a satellite operation or relocation of the whole business was considered a viable alternative for reasons including the fact that in searching for a new site the business would be competing with other land uses, most notably housing, that generate a far higher land values, that a split or relocated site undermines the business model based on modular servicing savings, and that the success of the business to date is based around the location and setting on the Plawsworth site. In addition, the existing relationships to a range of smaller businesses that support the hotel (a number are listed in the supporting documentation) would be severed if the business relocated elsewhere (with no guarantees that this would be in the immediate vicinity or even within County Durham).

77. Concluding this section, whilst acknowledging that ‘in principle’ the proposals are contrary to the policies in the local plan, consistent with the advice set out in the NPPF, and as per Policy Officer’s advice, Planning Officers consider that a viable case for site and proposal specific very special circumstances has been set out to a degree where it can be argued to outweigh the planning policy principle.

Siting and Landscape effects

78. Having considered the need for the business to develop on this site in particular in economic terms, it is appropriate at this juncture to look at the detail of the proposed scheme and examine how it relates to the site and seeks to minimise and physical harm to the village in terms of the effect of the development on the setting of the village – or in other words to minimise the harm to the loss of openness in the Green Belt.

79. The effect of the scheme on both the character of the countryside, and the character of the village has been a driver in discussions on the potential for development of the site. Early versions of the scheme had the development sited due east of the farm and the village, between the farmhouse and the property named Kirby Hill. This was not considered acceptable, affecting the setting of the farmhouse, perceived as a clear traditional visual ‘entrance’ to the village, and in being the most prominent place for new buildings when viewed from the ‘public domain’. The land to the north of the existing operation was identified as having the potential to be viewed as a logical extension of the basic agriculturally referenced existing layout, taking benefit of a hollow in the landform that would allow the new development to sit beside, and lower than the existing. When approached from the east the development will appear of generally single storey appearance, stepping down from the plain corner building that is barn-like in appearance. The landform will screen the majority of the development from this short-view main public aspect. Likewise the scheme has been designed to be largely screened by the landform in short to medium views from the north-east, and to sit well below the skyline of the existing settlement when viewed from the north-west, and the A167 in particular. As part of a carefully designed supporting landscaping scheme, the proposed screening is not designed to hide the site, but to allow it sit comfortably against the village and within the landscape. The scheme incorporates additional planting to existing field boundaries, and reinstatement of hedgerows shown on historic maps, to help this integration. There will be additional light-spill in this direction, but elevation has been carefully designed to minimise this potential –reflected in the lack of objection from County Landscape Officers, and giving justification against Policy NE6 of the District Local Plan.

80. A detailed investigation of the effect on the landscape setting is set out in the submitted Design and Access Statement and the Landscape Appraisal. The response of Landscape Officers is key to assessment of this critical dimension of the proposals. They conclude the scheme as submitted has a limited adverse effect on the Conservation Area and its setting, the scheme having responded well to their pre-submission advice. The development avoids significant landscape or visual impacts from public receptors - Landscape Officers feel able to support the proposals. Whilst they are clear that the Green Belt Policy is a Planning issue, their assessment that the proposals will avoid ‘significant visual impacts’ and support for the scheme can be interpreted as the development avoiding harming the landscape setting. Planning Officers therefore advise this element of the scheme is recommended as acceptable.

Siting and Conservation Area effects

81. As the countryside setting likewise affects the scale and character of the Conservation Area, Landscape Officers comments, and their support for the scheme is likewise relevant to this section of the considerations. The Conservation Area status does not preclude new development, indeed the majority of development in the village is less than 50 years old. In pre-submission discussions, the applicants agents were asked not only to consider the built development of the village and its status as a Conservation Area as a ‘designated heritage asset’, but also to consider the farmhouse as a prominent ‘non-designated heritage asset’, which must lead and inform any design.

82. S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires Local planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. To this end Design and Conservation Officers acknowledge the scheme reflects the extensive pre-submission discussions in assessing whether the development reflects both the formal Conservation Area status, and more subtly the historic evolution of the village that has justified that designation. The effect of the development both within the village in terms of built form, massing, character and materials is considered acceptable, and the character of the Conservation Area and its setting in longer views also assessed as required. This specialist advisor concluding the design and landscaping of the proposed development is carefully considered and would relate well to the existing Plawsworth Hall Farm, the local vernacular and the character of the Conservation Area, with minimal long and short distance views in and out of the site.

83. Planning Officers consider the scheme of ‘Conservation Area Quality’, architect designed as an excellent design response to two complicated and sets of drivers – Planning requirements with a particularly high standard required of design and materials reflecting the history of the village, its setting and its protected status, landscape and ecology issues, whilst meeting the requirements of a modern, efficient sustainable business operation. Whilst the majority of the proposed development is outside the Conservation Area, the scheme is considered a high-quality response to its existence. It is noted that to ensure a full consultation on this issue, English Heritage were formally offered the opportunity to comment – that body choosing to defer to the assessment of the Local Authority’s own Conservation Officers. The development is considered therefore to have due regard to Policy BE4 of the Local Plan, Policy 44 of the emerging plan and the strategic advice set out in Part 12 of the NPPF

Design Quality

84. The NPPF insists that good design is an essential component of good planning. Whilst the presence of the Conservation Area requires a high standard of design, this is an aspect of the application that deserves particular attention in its own right, particular effort having been put in to it by the applicants, complimentary to the Heritage assessment, above. Starting from the evolution of the village around the three farm groups, as set out in the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, 2007 and an assessment of visual receptors, short and long distance, a number of key site characteristics were identified, which included the existing landscape character, the form of adjacent development, site topography, connectivity and flood risk. Following best practice a community consultation exercise was carried out in addition to the extensive discussions with Council Officers – those discussions setting aside the principle of Green Belt development, seeking to achieve a design that would give the applicant the best chance of an approval if the applicant could make a clear and convincing case for ‘very special circumstances’.

85. The scheme needed a quality to both respect the Conservation Area setting, and reflect the quality of the established business. In presenting a logical extension to the village it needed to create a strong definition to the proposed new settlement boundary, whilst respecting both the landscape setting and the hierarchy of buildings within the village. ‘Low intervention’ into the landscape, protection of inward views into the site and a development of unique character were all in the architect’s brief.

86. The result was a scheme based around a hierarchy of courtyards. From the main public aspect – i.e. the eastern entrance in to the village, a strong corner building, with a blank gable replicates the massing of a traditional barn, line up with the strong existing feature of the haha retaining walls that front the existing farmhouse – a series of apparently single storey buildings are then clustered around a courtyard, giving reference to a converted stable-yard. The site parking is in front of this part of the scheme, using the existing access that passes the business’ site office / reception. The field fronting the farmhouse will remain open – a critical requirement of the design brief. The courtyard is described as ‘apparently’ single storey as these properties are split-level, and use the landform to become two storey when facing into the second, lower courtyard, and in part when facing north. The buildings around this second courtyard are two storey in height, and sit in the hollow, north of the high retaining structures of the existing development. With a traditionally referenced outer elevation to give reference and continuity to the existing hotel buildings and wider village, the heavily glazed internal courtyard is of a more contemporary design. The potential for this glazing to intrude as light spill in to the adjacent countryside is resolved by the presence of a small feature building that completes the north side of what then becomes a private internal open space within the scheme.

87. The design of the scheme gives due regard to sustainability issues, in excess of the expected build requirements. The modular internal layout, in addition to being central to the operation of the facilities, ultimately allows for ‘future flexibility’ and the accommodation to be split or joined in future to meet emerging demands (subject to the appropriate consents). Energy management from a communal wood-chip boiler furthers the sustainability credentials of the scheme, with the opportunity for photo- voltaic in future if desired.

88. Officers consider that the scheme is particularly strong in design terms, having responded well to the sometimes competing and conflicting planning and commercial design requirements. The applicant are noted as having shown commendable commitment to this issue, having pursued a number of dead-ends in design and siting terms in their efforts to design a scheme that meets the demands of the location.

Ecology

89. In terms of the impact of the proposals upon ecology and biodiversity as a result of additional numbers of tourists within the Village, the applicant has submitted as required a Phase I survey a specialist Ecology firm. This concluded that the application site is of low ecological value and that the proposals do not represent a significant threat to flora and fauna. Nonetheless, the applicant has incorporated wildlife mitigation measures within the scheme to ensure the protection of existing trees, nesting birds and mammals, along with enhancement measures such as: bat and bird boxes; bat slate access points within the building; and landscape planting, including wildflower grassland, to enhance structural diversity and to provide a food source for local wildlife. The Council’s Ecologist has specifically identified a desire to ensure that the wildflower grassland is included and welcomed the biodiversity gains this would bring, who requests a condition to ensure such. The scheme is therefore considered in line with part 11 of the NPPF.

Issues raised by objectors

90. As part of the pre-submission discussions, the developer was advised of best practice in consulting with the local community, and as noted in the applicant’s statement held a well-attended event to display the proposals at a stage where they were capable of amendment if either significant adverse comment or technical difficulties were identified.

91. The Council’s formal consultation exercise resulted in five letters of objection from the village. In addition, the two Ward Councillors undertook their own exercise. The following section seeks to address the concerns raised, where they have not already been covered above.

92. In terms of the development representing a precedent for the building on Green Belt land or in the Conservation Area, Members will be aware that each set of proposals are considered on their own merits. With the unique nature of the extended operation proposed, one of the fundamental justifications, the potential of this scheme to be considered a precedent for other similar development is minimal. This is particularly true of Green Belt applications, where each proposal must have its own set of ‘very special circumstances’ and therefore by definition the potential for precedent is minimal. Officers do note that there have been other significant developments in the Green Belt that have been justified on this basis on their own merits – ‘enabling’ housing development at Ramside Hall, and leisure related development at Union Hall Farm (Adventure Valley) to name two. Other than showing that ‘very special circumstances’ can on occasion exist, neither set a precedent for each other, or this. The scheme is not, as contended, larger than the existing village, and the design is a logical yet innovative response to a traditional agricultural village, which when examined in detail has a range of styles and massings within it. The village is varied in character and has no indigenous design style as claimed. Particular attention has been paid to minimising ‘light pollution’ – i.e. light spill into the surrounding countryside in the design

93. Local Drainage capacity has been discussed in detail with Northumbrian Water – the Environment Agency offering no comment. Historic capacity issues in the area are acknowledged, and a condition is suggested tying the occupation of the new development to additional planned capacity in the area.

94. Both the stated operating capacities of the business and the available market for the proposed accommodation is offered as objection. The scheme has been assessed in these regards by both Business Durham and Visit County Durham in these regards, with both the business case, and the niche ‘offer’ of the hotel as existing and proposed accepted as sustainable and viable.

95. Objectors’ concerns that the development poses potential threats to nearby natural areas and will lead to impacts such as: soil erosion, increased pollution, natural habitat loss and pressure on wildlife, with habitat degraded by holiday guests leisure activities, their noise, sewage, use of footpaths, straying from paths and littering, is not reflected by Ecologists, Landscape Officers or Conservation Officers. Increasing public access to the Countryside is an aspiration of the planning system and the County Council, and a potential positive of the scheme. It is however noted there is a particular paucity of formal rights of way to the north and east of Plawsworth, and the applicant’s estate management in terms of the appearance of the hotel and its grounds as existing has been noted elsewhere in this report.

96. The existing business does not appear in its 20 year existence to have undermined local community spirit, even with the combined ‘transient populations’ of the hotel and the nearby Cyrenian’s facility contended likely to overwhelm the village - there is no evidence to suggest that the proposals will have an adverse impact upon the community within Plawsworth Village or upon residential amenity within the area. Officers see no reason why the extension should have undue additional effect. References to devaluation of property, even oblique, have minimal weight in the planning consideration. It is noted that the NPPF states that the planning system has an important role to play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities, with opportunities for meetings between member of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other.

97. Kimblesworth and Plawsworth Parish Council’s objection to the increase in traffic, a concern not reflected by Highways Engineers. The access arrangements of the hotel are appropriate for that use only. It has been suggested that the development will become dwellings in the countryside – both the layout of the design and the restricted vehicular layout, inappropriate for residential development, would preclude this as an easy alternative use. The scheme is considered acceptable in highways terms, in line with the requirements of Policies T15 and T17 of the development plan.

Other issues

98. To ensure the development is used for the stated purpose, a variation of the standard occupancy conditions applied to holiday accommodation, as suggested in the ‘Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism’ is intended appended. This gives the Council an additional level of control to ensure that the use of the development is as applied for. This is a standard type of condition which is accepted as good practice, and is welcomed by the applicant, considered both necessary and relevant to any approval.

99. Whilst the size of the site is below the usual threshold for such, County Archaeologists have asked for an assessment of any features relating to the land’s historical agricultural use to be recorded before development commences, by way of a standard condition.

100. No issues of direct impact on residential amenity or privacy have been raised through the application, either by objectors, or in the Officer’s detailed assessment of the scheme.

CONCLUSION

101. The planning assessment set out two main issues against which to consider these proposals – the principle of , by definition inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and then whether the development results in unreasonable ‘harm’ to the Green Belt, the Conservation Area, or the existing village.

102. From a starting point of accepting the proposals are both by definition inappropriate, and do not fall within the list of standard exceptions, the applicant has sought to demonstrate that this extension to an established and successful business in the first instance could not be sited elsewhere, and then, presents a justification that the potential economic benefits the scheme will bring, both directly and indirectly to the immediate and surrounding could be regarded as the ‘very special circumstances’ needed to outweigh the significant Green Belt principle.

103. Officers do not consider deviation from the Green Belt policies lightly, and as where other projects have sought to justify special circumstances, require both a convincing case, and an exemplary project. The economic justification that stretches beyond benefitting just the business itself, but spreads into the supply chain and the wider economy has been assessed and accepted by Business Durham, who support the proposals. Balancing this assessment against the in principle objection to the scheme from Spatial Policy officers represents the crux of the consideration, with the advice of Business Durham a significant consideration in Officer’s conclusion that the strength of the economic case is such that it becomes the determining issue.

104. The quality of the scheme, and the architect’s skill in integrating a large development into a complex site within a raft of protective designations, is reflected in the responses of specialist consultees from the Council’s Landscape and Conservation Sections, who raise no objection, each noting the positive response to their requirements during the pre-submission process. Whilst the development would change the appearance of this part of the edge of the village, Officers do not consider it represents ‘harm’. Notwithstanding the principle the scheme is a potential high quality development that represents a logical extension of the village, site well in the countryside, and is therefore recommended as acceptable.

105. The Member of Parliament supports the proposals. A public consultation exercise carried out by the applicants pre-submission appeared to show the community as generally supportive. A small number of direct letters of objection in response to the formal consultation exercise have been received setting out a variety of concerns, and local Members have a more comprehensive list of objections from their own canvassing of the whole village. Those concerns are addressed above, with none of the detailed issues raised considered capable of sustaining a refusal.

106. The application is assessed within a specific use class for a specific form of development. A raft of conditions to ensure the use is operated as expected, and that the scheme is implemented as assessed are suggested.

107. To approve the scheme Members must be convinced that the development can only happen in this location, and that the economic benefits set out as ‘very special circumstances’ are such that they outweigh the principle of the Green Belt protection of the land. Detailed discussions examining the need for the development to be focussed on this site where there is a presumption against development, and examining the reasoning against other sites and other locations, both for the extension, or as a whole-scale relocation of the business have been undertaken, with Officers accepting the arguments.

108. On a balanced judgement of the scheme’s assessment by specialist consultees, and in assessing the physical impacts of the development, Planning Officers recommend the scheme positively. The scheme is considered to compliment the Conservation Area, to fit well into the landscape setting, and to represent a high quality of development, appropriate to the location. The economic case for the extension, and the established business’ wider economic benefits, argued by the applicant to outweigh the significant Green Belt protection has likewise been accepted as the ‘very special circumstances’ needed to recommend the proposals positively, giving due weight both to the advice of specialist advisors on this issue and the explanations of the specific need for siting in this location.109. As a major development that is a ‘departure’ from adopted Green Belt Policies (in having a floor space greater than 1000sqm), it is noted that any potential approval must be referred to the Secretary of State, who has 21 days to decide whether the application should be ‘called in’.

RECOMMENDATION

109. That Members be MINDED TO APPROVE the application subject to referral of the application to the Secretary of State and in the event that the application is not called in by the Secretary of State that it be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved plans: 3406 PL 31 Elevations 1 3406 PL 32 Elevations 2 3406 PL 33 Elevations 3 3406 PL 11 Rev.A Proposed Site Plan – Roof 3406 PL 22 Rev.C Floor Plans – Upper Ground 3406 PL 21 Rev.B Floor Plans – Lower Ground 3406 PL 23 Rev.B Floor Plans – First 3406 PL 20 Rev.A Apartment Types 3406 PL 24 Rev.B Roof Plan 813/01 Landscape Strategy

Reason: To define the consent and ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies NE2, NE4, NE6, BE4, TM3, T15 and T17 of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan, 2003 (saved policies 2009), and Policies 1, 14, 16, 18, 19, 28, 35, 39, 41 and 44 of the County Durham Plan, Pre-submission Draft Local Plan, Oct 2013.

3. The development may only be operated within Use Class C1 as an apart-hotel, as an extension of the existing apart-hotel at Plawsworth Hall Farm. The approved C1 Use Class accommodation must only be occupied as such and shall not be occupied as a person’s sole, or main place of residence. No group or individual may occupy any of the accommodation for a period of more than 9 months in any one calendar year. The owners/operators of Plawsworth Hall shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of individual apartments / units / rooms on the site, and of their main home addresses, and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the Local planning authority.

Reason: To define the consent and ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies NE2, NE4, TM3, T15 and T17 of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan, 2003 (saved policies 2009), and Policies 1, 14, 28 and 35 of the County Durham Plan, Pre-submission Draft Local Plan, Oct 2013.

4. Notwithstanding any details of materials submitted with the application, no development shall commence until details of the make, colour and texture of all wall, roof, bargeboard, soffit, fenestration, door, rainwater-goods, and all other external elevational materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area and to comply with Policies NE2, NE4, NE6, BE4, and TM3, of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan, 2003 (saved policies 2009), and Policies 1, 14, 16, 18, 19, 28, and 35 of the County Durham Plan, Pre-submission Draft Local Plan, Oct 2013.

5. Notwithstanding the details of materials submitted with the application, where the external walls, whether part of the building, a boundary or a retaining structure, are to be stonework, they shall be formed using random, coursed natural stone. Prior to the commencement of the building works a sample panel of the proposed stone and pointing to be used in the construction of the main walls of the building shall be erected on site for inspection. A written specification of the pointing must be submitted. The written approval of the Local planning authority for the sample panel and pointing must be received prior to the commencement of the building works and the sample panel shall be retained for reference on site throughout construction. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area and to comply with Policies NE2, NE4, NE6, BE4, and TM3, of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan, 2003 (saved policies 2009), and Policies 1, 14, 16, 18, 19, 28, and 35 of the County Durham Plan, Pre-submission Draft Local Plan, Oct 2013.

6. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the surface treatment and construction of all hard-surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area and to comply with Policies NE2, NE4, NE6, BE4, TM3, T15 and T17 of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan, 2003 (saved policies 2009), and Policies 1, 14, 16, 28, 35, 39, and 44 of the County Durham Plan, Pre-submission Draft Local Plan, Oct 2013.

7. Where temporary hard-surfaces are proposed constructed to allow site access or form site compounds, the location, fencing and siting of temporary structures on these must be agreed before development commences, and a scheme for reinstatement of the site agreed and implemented in full before any part of the development comes into operation for the approved use.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area and to comply with Policies NE2, NE4, NE6, BE4, TM3, T15 and T17 of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan, 2003 (saved policies 2009), and Policies 1, 14, 16, 28, 35, 39, and 44 of the County Durham Plan, Pre-submission Draft Local Plan, Oct 2013.

8. Prior to the commencement of the development details of all means of enclosure and retaining structure facing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning authority. The structures shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the scheme.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area and to comply with Policies NE2, NE6, BE4 and TM3 of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan, 2003 (saved policies 2009), and Policies 1, 14, 16, 28, 35, and 39 of the County Durham Plan, Pre-submission Draft Local Plan, Oct 2013.

9. Where site works and access affect existing trees on or around the site, tree protection, site working methods and mitigation must be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations in the ‘Arboricultural Impact Assessment’, Dendra Consulting ltd, 4 Nov. 2013, and the current British Standard for protection of trees on development sites.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area and to comply with Policies NE2, NE4, NE6, BE4, and TM3 of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan, 2003 (saved policies 2009), and Policies 1, 14, 16, 18, 28, 35, 39, and 41 of the County Durham Plan, Pre-submission Draft Local Plan, Oct 2013.

10. No development shall commence until a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, including a specified timetable for implementation. No tree shall be felled or hedge removed until the landscape scheme, including any replacement tree and hedge planting, is approved. Any submitted scheme must be shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats. The landscape scheme shall include accurate plan based details of the following: Trees, hedges and shrubs scheduled for retention. Details of hard and soft landscaping including planting species, sizes, layout, densities, numbers. Details of planting procedures or specification. Finished topsoil levels and depths. Details of temporary topsoil and subsoil storage provision. Seeded or turf areas, habitat creation areas and details etc. Details of land and surface drainage. The establishment maintenance regime, including watering, rabbit protection, tree stakes, guards etc, and which provides for replacement of failed planting for a period of five years. The local planning authority shall be notified in advance of the start on site date and the completion date of all external works, with the works implemented in accordance with the approved timetable.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area and to comply with Policies NE2, NE4, NE6, BE4, and TM3 of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan, 2003 (saved policies 2009), and Policies 1, 14, 16, 18, 28, 35, 39, and 41 of the County Durham Plan, Pre-submission Draft Local Plan, Oct 2013.

11. The development must include creation of a wildflower meadow as shown in Landscape Strategy drawing 813/01, the precise location, specification and maintenance of which must be agreed in writing with the Local planning authority before development commences, and thereafter implemented in full accordance with said approval within an agreed timescale.

Reason: In the interests of the Ecological interests of the area and to comply with Policy 41 of the County Durham Plan, Pre-submission Draft Local Plan, Oct 2013.

12. No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The strategy shall include details of the following: i) Measures to ensure the identification and assessment of features of identified importance. ii) Methodologies for the recording of any preserved ridge and furrow prior to topsoil stripping. iii Report content and arrangements for dissemination, and publication proposals. iv) Archive preparation and deposition with recognised repositories. v) A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the strategy. vi) Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham Principal Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works. vii) A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including subcontractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications. The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to comply with Part 12 of the NPPF as the site may have archaeological interest.

13. Prior to the development being beneficially occupied, a copy of any archaeological analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record.

Reason: to comply with Part 12 of the NPPF which ensures information gathered becomes publicly accessible

14. Occupation of the units shall not commence until a detailed scheme for the disposal of foul water from the development hereby approved has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority in consultation with the Statutory Undertaker. Thereafter the development shall take place wholly in accordance with said approved details.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, in accordance with the NPPF.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

110. The Local Planning Authority in arriving at the recommendation to approve the application has actively engaged with the applicant to secure a positive outcome in accordance with the NPPF in seeking to set out the constraints of the site and its policy context, and to address issues identified by consultees and objectors during the course of the application.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Submitted application forms and plans ‘Arboricultural Impact Assessment’, Dendra Consulting ltd, 4 Nov. 2013 ‘Foul Drainage Assessment’, Plawsworth Hall Farm, Aug. 2013 ‘Sustainability Statement’, GVA, Nov. 2013 ‘Statement of Community Involvement’, GVA, Nov. 2013 ‘Landscape Appraisal’ Southern Green, June 2013 ‘Planning Statement’, GVA, Nov. 2013 ‘Economic Impacts of Plawsworth Hall Farm’, GVA, Nov. 2013 ‘Coal Mining Risk Assessment’, Roberts Environmental ltd, Nov 2013 ‘Design & Access Statement’, Jane Darbyshire & David Kendall Chartered Architects ‘Application Summary’, GVA, 6 Nov. 2013 Site Notice / Advertisement Statutory, Internal and public consultation responses. Chester-le-Street District Local Plan (saved policies 2009) County Durham Plan, pre-submission draft, Oct 2013 National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012 ‘Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism’, DCLG, 2006

Application Site

Erection of a 31 unit serviced apart-hotel (C1 Use Class) and associated access, car parking, landscaping and engineering works Planning Services at Plawsworth Hall Farm, Wheatley Well Lane Application Number 2/13/00283/FUL This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date January 2014 Scale 1:2500