Angel Inn Wine Cave, Hetton
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
YORKSHIRE DALES NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY ITEM 5(c) Committee: PLANNING Date: 9 APRIL 2019 Report: REFERENCE BACK: full planning permission for change of use of wedding reception venue (D2) with guest accommodation (C1) to restaurant (A3) and guest accommodation (C1) including internal and external alterations; rear extension and associated car parking, Angel Inn Wine Cave, Hetton. (Ref C/43/44G) Purpose of the report 1. To provide further advice on Members’ decision to defer consideration of the application for the change of use and extension to the Wine Cave at Hetton. Background 2. At the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 12th March 2019, Members decided to defer consideration of the above application as they were minded to refuse the application contrary to officer recommendation. A copy of the report from that meeting is attached for information. 3. The reasons given by Members for that decision were: 1. It would result in overdevelopment of the site. 2. It would be detrimental to residential amenity. 3. There would be potential light pollution. 4. There would be a severe loss of parking causing highway safety issues. Analysis of reasons 4. Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that decisions on planning applications must be taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is a presumption in favour of the Development Plan which in this case is the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2015-2030). The Development Plan is the starting point and must be followed unless there is good reason not to. 5. In considering a planning application Members should therefore firstly form a clear judgement as to whether the proposal accords with the development plan. If it does not, they should then consider whether there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to justify a departure from the Development Plan 6. For matters to be ‘material considerations’ they must be genuine planning matters (relating to the use and development of land) and fairly and reasonably related to the development concerned. Personal circumstances can be material considerations but only in exceptional or special circumstances. Reason 1) It would result in overdevelopment of the site. 7. ‘Overdevelopment’ is a planning concept that relates to the amount of development proposed and whether that amount is appropriate for the site. Proposals are generally considered to be overdevelopment where they would result in harmful impacts arising from the inability of the site to accommodate the amount of development proposed. 8. The size of the proposed extension has dimensions of 8m x 9.5m. The building is set a good distance back from the highway and has a yard area to the rear. The proposed extension does not increase the width of the building. The size of the host building and the plot in which it stands means that an extension of the size proposed cannot be said to represent an overdevelopment given the size of the site. 9. Applying the concept of overdevelopment to the proposal as a whole – the extension, the change of use and the redevelopment of the car park – relies essentially upon the view that the resulting amount of off-street parking is inadequate to provide for traffic associated with the development and as such would have unacceptable harmful impacts. That issue is addressed in reason 4 below. Reason 2) It would be detrimental to residential amenity. 10. The building is presently used to host wedding receptions. There are no conditions on the hours of use of the building or in relation to the noise from music and revellers, for example. 11. At present the areas to the front and rear of the building are used for car parking which brings with it some disruption from engines idling and doors being opened and closed and pedestrians walking to and from their vehicles. 12. In order for the proposed use to be considered detrimental to residential amenity such that it would warrant the refusal of planning permission it would need to be demonstrated firstly that the proposed use would be significantly more harmful than the current use of the building and that it would not be possible to address the impacts adequately through planning conditions. 13. It is considered that the use of the car park at the rear of the site as formal garden is unlikely to generate significantly more noise and disturbance for residents than the current use of the car park subject to a condition that the rear garden is not used as a dining area and that tables are not laid out there and there is no amplified music played outside. The behaviour of patrons walking around the garden cannot be controlled through the planning system however if patrons were to drink alcohol outside then the current premises licence would have to be varied and that is within the control of the licensing authority - Craven District Council. Reason 3) There would be potential light pollution. 14. The proposed extension is designed with seamless glass walls to two sides and it is argued that light from the extension would result in light pollution. The extension would be situated behind the main building and within a high walled courtyard. The roof design includes a bronze metal fascia overhang which would prevent light from shining upwards. It is considered that light emission from the building would be into the enclosed rear garden area would not have a significant effect on the dark sky of the area or on neighbouring properties. Reason 4) There would be a severe loss of parking causing highway safety issues. 15. The off street parking at the site would be reduced as a result of the proposal. Policy SP4(k) of the Local Plan requires development proposals to have “have appropriate access and parking provision”. This has to be read in conjunction with the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 109 which states “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”. 16. The parking provision for the proposed development amounts to 9 parking spaces. It is acknowledged by the applicant that the proposal will lead to an increase in on street parking. 17. The evidence provided by the applicant’s consultant, CTC, concludes that there is sufficient capacity at the Wine Cave and on Fleets Lane. The methodology and conclusions of the CTC report have been criticised by Curtins, the consultants acting for the Parish Meeting. Whilst the scope of the CTC survey could have been greater, Officers consider that the conclusions are convincing. Furthermore it is has not been clearly demonstrated that the likely increase in on street parking would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Fleet Lane is relatively wide and could accommodate on street car parking with no apparent effect on highway safety. The other consideration is the residual cumulative impact on the road network. 18. The applicant has suggested a condition that the Wine Cave will not be open on Sundays in order to concentrate custom at the Angel during its busy period. 19. Taking into account the evidence provided by both consultants Officers consider that the proposal is unlikely to have a severe impact on the road network and that the parking provision is adequate for the scale of the development. Members should note that if a severe impact cannot be demonstrated refusal of permission is unlikely to be tenable on appeal. Conclusion 20. Overall, the proposed extension is a small scale addition to the rear of the building which is considered to be acceptable in terms of its design and scale and would not harm the heritage significance of the building. The glazed archway and other alterations are also considered to be acceptable in terms of their impact on the appearance and character of the former barn. 21. It is considered that the effect of the proposal on residential amenity potentially arising from light pollution, noise or disturbance from activity associated with the use and from inconvenience caused by traffic generated by the use is only likely to be limited and should be capable of being controlled by planning conditions and the proper management of the premises. These are not considered to be tenable grounds for refusal that could be sustained on appeal. 22. It is considered that the potential for an increase in parking on Fleets Lane resulting in a severe impact on the road network has not been definitively demonstrated. Officers consider that the proposal is unlikely to have a severe impact on the road network or unacceptably affect highway safety, and that the parking provision is adequate for the scale of the development. RECOMMENDATION 23. That the application be approved in accordance with the recommendation contained in the reports considered at the meeting of the 12th March 2019. 24. If Members are minded to refuse the application the following reason is suggested: In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development does not provide appropriate on site parking provision to accommodate the likely increase in vehicles coming to the site. The impact of the proposed development would therefore have a severe impact on the road network by increasing the number of vehicles parking on Fleets Lane as a direct consequence of the development. The development is therefore considered contrary to the requirements of policy SP4(K) of the