A PLANNING application for the conversion of a wedding reception venue with accommodation, known as the Wine Cave, to a restaurant with accommodation and associated car parking has been turned down by the Yorkshire Dales National Park’s planning committee.

The proposals for the Angel Inn, in Hetton, had been recommended for approval by officers.

More than 20 letters of representation had been received against the plans which were determined at last week’s planning meeting. The letters cited concerns over the impact on the highway network, parking and access. Objectors noted that cars already park on Fleet Lane and make parking for residents difficult.

The report to members stated there are currently 16 parking spaces in the rear courtyard of the Wine Cave that are accessed through the archway. The proposed development would see these spaces removed. The area to the front of the building is shown as having parking for nine vehicles.

With 30 covers it was said that, at times, customers would need to park in Fleets Lane or surrounding roads.

Objectors also stated the transport statement which was issued was ‘flawed’ and did not give a true reflection of the parking situation.

In contrast, a letter of support was received from tourism agency Welcome to Yorkshire which stated the business will be a ‘huge draw for visitors to the area which will bring additional revenue to the local and wider economy’.

The planning committee was told that Michelin-star chef Michael Wignall and his wife, Johanna, along with their partners, James and Jo Wellock, wanted to create a fine dining restaurant at the Wine Cave. But their plans included the removal of the 16 car parking spaces in the rear yard, the construction of a rear extension, and the creation of a landscaped courtyard.

Hetton cum Bordley Parish Meeting secured the services of a QC to fight the plans.

Parish meeting representative Andrew Armstrong made reference to an earlier appeal going back to 1995.

He said Hetton parish meeting has been obliged to go to the length of employing the Queens Counsel who represented (the Authority) at the 1995 planning appeal. The Authority’s decision at that time to refuse a planning application involving the Angel Inn was upheld at the three-day appeal.

Members listed reasons for refusal that 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 and would be detrimental to residential amenity.