At the Area Planning Committee (Central and East) meeting, councillors approved plans for 33 affordable homes in Seaham, 64 dwellings in Wheatley Hill, and a retrospective application for a parking area in Durham, while a proposal for a dormer bungalow in Sherburn Hill was refused. Councillors also approved a variation to a planning application in High Shincliffe, and two change of use applications to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Gilesgate. Finally, the committee approved a full planning application for an extension to the Durham Community Fire Station.

Planning Decisions

The committee made decisions on several planning applications:

Durham Community Fire Station Extension Approved

Councillors approved application DM/24/03318/FPA for a 2.5-storey building for offices and associated uses for the operation of County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service and accommodation for the North East Ambulance Service at the Durham Community Fire Station including a new access road, external lighting, parking area, landscaping, PV panels and a wind turbine.

The Highways Authority requested a condition be added to the application, limiting when the new access can be brought into operation and the delivery of off-site highways works being completed.

The Design and Conservation Officer considered that there would be no direct intervisibility between the mast and the Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage Site.

Affordable Housing in West Rainton Approved

Councillors approved application DM/24/02156/FPA for the erection of 20 affordable dwellings on land south of 28 Station Road, West Rainton. All 20 dwellings are to be affordable units of shared ownership tenure.

The committee noted that the application had been submitted by Woodside Commercial Developments Limited, and that the affordable units, once constructed, would be managed by Heylo Housing, a Registered Provider¹.

As part of the approval, the developer is required to enter into a Section 106 agreement² to secure:

• 100% of Affordable housing on-site comprising 20 Affordable Shared Ownership units
• £88,385 contribution toward increasing capacity at the following Primary Schools: West Rainton Primary School; and/or Pittington Primary School; and/or Belmont Cheveley Park
• £72,936 contribution toward increasing capacity at Belmont School
• £16,796 contribution toward increasing capacity at SEND schools across the County
• £58,608 contribution toward improving off-site public open space in the Electoral Division.

The committee noted that the development would lead to the loss of a community hub, but that planning permission had not yet been granted. The committee noted that a new retail store was not viable in this location, and that the County Council were left with the likelihood that the previously approved community hub would not come to fruition.

The committee stipulated that the development:

• Must begin within three years
• Must be carried out in accordance with a list of approved plans and documents
• Must have a Biodiversity Gain Plan prepared in accordance with the ‘Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment V3, dated January 2025 by OS Ecology
• Must have a Landscape Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan
• Must have notice given to the Local Planning Authority when the LEMP has been implemented, and when the on-site habitat creation and enhancement works as set out in the LEMP have been completed
• Must have the habitat creation and enhancement works set out in the approved LEMP completed prior to the occupation of the final dwelling on the scheme
• Must have a completion report, evidencing the completed habitat enhancements, submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the final dwelling on the scheme
• Must have the created and/or enhanced habitat(s) specified in the approved HMMP managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP
• Must have monitoring reports submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing in accordance with the methodology and frequency specified in the approved HMMP
• Must have details of the location of integrated bat and bird boxes, along with details of the type of box, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first dwelling being constructed beyond damp proof course level
• Must have all close boarded fence boundary treatments containing a 13 x 13cm minimum gap between the fence base and the ground
• Must have a soil resource management strategy submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing
• Must have full engineering, drainage, street lighting and constructional details of the streets proposed for adoption by the Local Highway Authority submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the first dwelling
• Must have the proposed footpath link from the development to the adopted footpath to the north of the site implemented prior to the first occupation of Plots 10 or 11
• Must have no dwelling occupied until the refuse storage provision for that dwelling, as detailed on the approved plans, has been implemented
• Must have no dwelling occupied until the cycle parking provision for that dwelling, as detailed on the approved plans, has been implemented and made available for use
• Must have no dwelling occupied until the Electric Vehicle Charging Points for that dwelling, as detailed on the approved plans, has been installed and made available for use
• Must have no dwelling occupied until the car parking area for that dwelling, as detailed on the approved plans, has been hard surfaced, sealed and marked out as parking bays in accordance with the approved plans
• Must have details of root protection area measures in respect of the adjacent hedgerow to the east of the site submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any ground excavations, or laying of hardstanding, or storage of materials, plant or vehicles on land adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site
• Must have a scheme for a translocation methodology report for trees T1C-T9C identified within Landscape Plan ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-90001 P7, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any site clearance, preparatory work, or development taking place
• Must have an updated and final report of the ‘EcIA and Biodiversity Net Gain Durham Fire HQ Nov 2024 ref: ECN24098’ submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development

Affordable Housing in Seaham

Councillor A Bell noted it was brilliant to see this type of application come forward through the Local Authority, including air-source heat pumps and solar panels, setting a good example for other developers. He asked what the tenure mix was across the development and whether the properties would be retained by the Council or would transfer to a housing provider. He added that, as an application from the Local Authority, he would question the use of external agents acting on behalf, in terms of effective use of resources.

Stephen Bell, for the developer T Manners and Sons, noted that the properties would be in the continued ownership of the Council and would not transfer to a register provider.

Councillor A Bell moved that the application be approved as per the recommendation set out by the Senior Planning Officer.

Councillor K Shaw asked as regards the site being initially designated for bungalows only, 28 bungalows initially. He noted that the area was within the top ten areas with need for bungalows in the county. He asked how this had moved to mixed tenure and noted that therefore the proposals were not meeting that initially identified need in terms of bungalows. The Senior Planning Officer noted that the CDP stated ten percent requirement in terms of bungalows, which would equate to three for the proposed 33 properties, with the six being offered therefore in excess of policy requirements.

He added that he was the Case Officer for the larger site that the proposed development formed part of and would be mindful of the provision of bungalows across the whole site.

Councillor K Shaw reminded the meeting he had been the Cabinet Member for Housing when the ten percent bungalow provision had been included within the CDP. He explained there was around 3,500 people on the housing register and therefore he felt that all opportunities to include bungalows should be exhausted, especially in an area within the top ten areas of need, and he therefore felt in this case that the needed bungalows were not getting built. The Senior Planning Officer noted that the outstanding need was recognised, however, from a planning policy requirement the application was providing in excess of the required number of bungalows.

Councillor J Elmer noted that the application site was part of a larger allocated site and asked if there was pressure in terms of the open space allocated and area for BNG, when looking at applications across the wider site and there being pressure to deliver additional housing. The Senior Planning Officer noted the whole site was allocated for 260 dwellings and explained that BNG had been factored into the site, as well as the contributions in terms of coastal mitigation as previously referenced. He noted that the area to the north of the site would be untouched and that future phases of development would have to provide their own BNG and coastal mitigation.

Councillor J Clark noted that she agreed with the comments from Councillor A Bell in terms of having our own planning resources within the Council. She noted she felt that the comments raised by Councillor K Shaw had not been taken on board, in relation to the need for bungalows, and while it could be expected from private developers, she did not accept that stating there was greater provision that the minimum policy requirement and that future developments would provide bungalows was sufficient. She noted that the Committee could not account for what any future developments may bring and that the need that was established should be addressed and not ignored.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that he understood the local need in the area, and that the provision in the application before Members was deemed acceptable.

He added that the reference to bungalows would be fed back to colleagues.

The Chair noted that there was housing need across a number of areas and types, not just bungalows. The Senior Planning Officer noted there was identified need for two, three and four-bed properties.

Councillor L Brown asked if the Lawyer, Planning and Highways, Neil Carter would comment as regards the neighbour consultation letters and noted that she would wish for amendment to Condition 20 for a later start time of 0800 for works on site.

The Lawyer, Planning and Highways noted that while the neighbour notification letter had gone out late, it was not statutory publication in the same way as the site notice and notice within the local press. He added that, if Members were minded to approve the application, then the Council would await the conclusion of the notice period, as referenced by the Senior Planning Officer, to see if any new material information was put forward, and if so then the application would return to Committee accordingly.

Councillor A Surtees noted that, in light of the comments from Councillor K Shaw in terms of the allocation of bungalows to the site, what remit had been given to the developer in terms of the delivery of bungalows. The Senior Planning Officer reiterated that the wider site had been allocated for 260 dwellings in the CDP, with ten percent, 26, being the policy requirement for the whole site. He added that developers could be pressed in terms of future developments across the wider site. The Chair asked if the site being considered via this application was specifically for all bungalows by allocation. The Senior Planning Officer noted the CDP did not state the site must be 100 percent bungalows.

S Bell noted that T Manners and Sons had been briefed by DCC in terms of the development, in terms of the number of bungalows and being able to provide a deliverable scheme in terms of any Homes England grant. He added that he had been provided with demand data across all tenure and build types, with a mix arrived upon looking at Durham Key Options (DKO), Housing Policy and need data. He added there had been a desire to maximise the number of bungalows whilst meeting the financial parameters in terms of grant rates. He reiterated there had been a lot of work with DCC technical staff, Planners, Finance and Architects, to ensure the development ticked as many boxes as possible and was the best scheme possible.

Councillor D Oliver thanked S Bell, adding that the context he provided was useful. He noted there was an immense need for bungalows within the wider need for housing in general. He added he was reassured by the comments from Officers and the developer and therefore would be happy to second Councillor A Bell in approving the application.

Councillor K Shaw asked whether the site in question had been identified for bungalows or not. The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper noted that policy was for ten percent of the properties to be for older people, which in general meant bungalows. He added that moving forward, the CDP would be reviewed and should there be a need to amend the amount of such provision to be greater, say 20 or 30 percent, the CDP would change to reflect that. He reiterated that the allocation within the CDP was for ten percent, with the application before Members overdelivering in terms of such provision. He added that Members should note that the Senior Planning Officer was the officer allocated to the wider site and would be cognisant of the need when future applications were being made.

Councillor J Elmer noted there were vast range of positives with the application, in terms of the quality of the application, with affordable provision, bungalows, BNG, open space and green energy. He added there were very few issues, though he had sympathy with the position of Councillor K Shaw in terms of whether there was an opportunity to deliver more bungalows in the area. He added another issue was to look at the provision of accessible properties for residents.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that looking at Policy 4 and allocation, there was no specific reference to bungalow allocation, therefore the requirement was ten percent, being three and the development offered six which was an overprovision.

Councillor A Surtees noted that Councillors were not disagreeing with policy, just asking for clarification in terms of the site and whether there was a single purpose for the site in terms of bungalows. She noted that the proposals represented a good scheme overall and would not wish to hinder the application.

Councillor A Bell noted that fundamentally, as the Agent had referenced, the development was in line with Homes England requirements, and therefore he felt we must support such positive schemes. He noted that there was a greater need for family homes and rental tenure and therefore he reiterated his motion for approval.

The application was proposed for approval by Councillor A Bell, subject to amendment to start time for works to 0800, seconded by Councillor D Oliver and upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED, subject to no new material issues being raised and received by 28 March 2025, and subject to the conditions and s106 Legal Agreement as set out within the report, with an amended condition relating to works starting no earlier than 0800 and an additional condition relating to updated planting details being sought prior to first development.

Housing Development in Wheatley Hill Approved

Councillors approved application DM/23/02656/FPA for the erection of 64 dwellings with associated infrastructure, access and landscaping works on land west of Marley Fields, Wheatley Hill.

The Principal Planning Officer, George Spurgeon, noted that the initial application had been for 69 dwellings, but it had been reduced to 64 alongside a number of other improvements to the initial scheme.

The Principal Planning Officer noted no objections from statutory consultees, with Spatial Policy colleagues having noted the targeted delivery plan for Wheatley Hill to provide greater quality and choice of accommodation. He noted there was affordable homes provision, with bungalows, two and three-bed properties, with 12 bungalows being in excess of the ten percent requirements. He noted that the Ecology Section had no objections as there was BNG on site, and subject to conditions as set out within the report.

Councillor J Miller noted he was delighted to be at Committee and not speaking in objection to a planning application. He added that the application was helping to meet local needs in terms of bungalows, as well as two and three-bed properties. He noted there were a number of three bed bungalows within the village which was also very good. He commended the developer who had consulted with residents and Local Members openly and noted that the rerouting of the Arriva Service 22 to the new bus stop was brilliant, helping connections to the rest of the village.

Councillor L Brown noted when she initially looked at the application, she had noted it was outside of the settlement boundary and she would normally not be in favour of such applications. However, she noted that having heard the Local Members speak in favour of the application she appreciated that the application was meeting local need and therefore she had changed her mind in respect of the application.

The application was proposed for approval by Councillor J Elmer, seconded by Councillor A Bell and upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions and s106 Legal Agreement as set out within the report, with an amended condition relating to works starting no earlier than 0800.

Parking Area in Durham Approved

Councillors approved application DM/24/02744/FPA for a retrospective change of use from open space to parking area to the rear of 36 Hallgarth Street, Durham.

The Planning Officer, Michelle Hurton, noted the retrospective application was for a parking area to the rear of 36 Hallgarth Street, along an unadopted track. She noted the area was a residential area within the Durham City Conservation Area. She noted that there had been no objections from the Highways Section or the Design and Conservation Team.

She noted the City of Durham Parish Council had objected to the application, noting the impact upon the Conservation Area and piecemeal development of such small sites within the city. She noted there had been objections from members of the public, with issues including; impact on the Conservation Area; unauthorised works, obstruction of the track, flooding and surface water issues; and setting a precedent for other parking space applications in future.

The Planning Officer noted that the application was not considered to be a negative loss, with minor intrusion that did not represent significant harm, and was not out of keeping with such back lanes. She highlighted that the Highways Section had provided no objection and there was little impact upon the adjacent garden or residential amenity. She added as a retrospective application there was no requirement for BNG. She added that the change of use application was acceptable in principle in terms of the CDP and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and therefore the recommendation was for approval.

Parish Councillor C Lattin explained that the benefits were for only seven students within the student house in multiple occupation (HMO) and represented a loss for the community in terms of the loss of the verge and attractive back land used by many. It was added that the car park as constructed was not wholly in curtilage of the property, and in effect was a land grab. She highlighted there had been damage to the 13th Century burgage plot and noted that the proposals were on an unadopted public byway which had been impacted by the loss of verge.

The application was proposed for refusal by Councillor J Elmer, seconded by Councillor L Brown and upon a vote being taken the motion was LOST.

The application was proposed for approval by Councillor K Shaw, seconded by Councillor D Oliver and upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

Dormer Bungalow in Sherburn Hill Refused

Councillors refused application DM/24/03056/FPA for the erection of 1no. dormer bungalow on land south of Co-operative Funeral Service, Front Street, Sherburn Hill, DH6 1PA.

The Planning Officer, Mark Sandford, noted the application site comprised a rectangular parcel of land used as an allotment on the edge of Sherburn Hill village, to the south of a service property (Co-operative Funeralcare Services). The site is bounded by open countryside to the west and south, separated from the funeral parlour by an unmade track servicing storage garages to the north and another allotment is to the east.

The Planning Officer noted that the application was being reported to (Central and East) Planning Committee at the request of the local ward member (Councillor David Hall) as he believes it is important to the life of the village that local people are able to make their home there.

A letter of objection was received from the Co-op funeral parlour with concerns raised in regard to how the proposal could potentially affect persons attending the parlour.

The application site lies within the open countryside in a position that is outside of, and not considered well related visually to, the settlement of Sherburn Hill and is not considered to accord with any of the exceptions listed as acceptable through Policy 10 of the County Durham Plan, nor deemed permissible by other specific policies in the Plan as outlined at footnote 54, in particular Policy 6. The existing allotment site contributes positively to the character of the settlement and the proposed development would represent an unwelcome urban incursion into the open countryside. The principle of the development in this location is therefore considered unacceptable.

Silver Howe, High Shincliffe - Balcony Alterations Approved

Councillors approved application DM/24/03401/VOC for a variation of condition 2 of planning application DM/22/01509/FPA to alter the design of the balcony to the rear elevation, addition of two obscurely glazed windows to side elevation, increased verge overhang, brickwork feature to front elevation, increase in number of solar panels, omission of rooflights, alter the design/position of the outbuilding within the rear garden area and addition of pedestrian gate and design changes to front boundary treatment at Silver Howe, Heathways, High Shincliffe.

The application was being reported to Central and East Planning Committee at the request of Shincliffe Parish Council on the grounds of loss of privacy, scale and dominance of the proposal and highways safety issues.

The applicants have confirmed that it is their intention to obscurely glaze both windows and this has been reflected on the plans and it is proposed to control this in perpetuity

The design of the railing has been changed to railings as opposed to glass which is considered acceptable, and this is being replicated to the front railings also.

The proposed changes are not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the streetscene, the character of the host dwelling or the residential amenity of neighbouring properties given the height is not altered and the position generally remains in the same location albeit it is acknowledged the curved design now brings the wall slightly towards the centre line of the drive. The design is also considered acceptable as there are varying boundary treatments within the area.

There is therefore, no highway objection to the scheme and the proposal is considered acceptable in respect of policy 21 of the CDP and part 9 of the NPPF.

HMO in Gilesgate Approved

Councillors approved application DM/25/00198/FPA for a change of use from Dwelling (C3) to HMO (C4) at 38 Cooper Square, Gilesgate, Durham, DH1 1PT including driveway extension, single-storey rear extension, bin store and cycle rack.

The application is reported to planning committee at the request of Belmont Parish Council which considers the applicants contention that the proposed change satisfies sustainable development, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework is not supported by any evidence to justify the economic, social and environmental viability of the area will be improved. The Parish Council consider that these issues are such that they require consideration by the Committee.

The most recent up to date Council Tax information identifies that if planning permission was granted for the change of use of the dwellinghouse into a small HMO within 100 metre radius of and including 38 Coopers Square, 9.6% of properties would be Class N exempt student properties as defined by Council Tax records. There are no unimplemented consents or applications pending determination within 100m radius of the application site. As such the proposal would comply with criteria 'a' and 'b' in this respect. In terms of criterion 'c', the application site is within a residential area but is not on a street that could be considered a primary access route between Purpose Built Student Accommodation and the town centre, or a university campus, and therefore the development would comply with CDP Policy 16 in this respect.

The applicant is proposing the introduction of sound proofing to the first floor party wall and the ground floor party wall to the proposed 4 bedroom. Subject to the installation of sound proofing prior to first occupation of the C4 use, as shown on the submitted plans to be secured via planning condition, there would not be any unacceptable transfer of noise to neighbouring properties. The Council's EHO Noise Action Team makes no objection to the application in this regard.

HMO in Gilesgate Approved

Councillors approved application DM/25/00159/FPA for a change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a small house in multiple occupation HMO (Use Class C4) including extension of driveway, cycle parking and bin storage at 38 Goodyear Crescent, Sherburn Road Estate, Durham, DH1 2EB.

The application is reported to planning committee at the request of Belmont Parish Council which considers the applicants contention that the proposed change satisfies sustainable development, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework is not supported by any evidence to justify the economic, social and environmental viability of the area will be improved. The Parish Council consider that these issues are such that they require consideration by the Committee.

The most recent up to date Council Tax information identifies that if planning permission was granted for the change of use of the dwellinghouse into a small HMO within 100 metre radius of and including 38 Goodyear Crescent, 10% of properties would be Class N exempt student properties as defined by Council Tax records. There are no unimplemented consents within 100m radius of the application site. As such the proposal would comply with criterion 'a' and 'b' in this respect. In terms of criterion 'c', the application site is within a residential area but is not on a street that could be considered a primaryaccess route between Purpose Built Student Accommodation and the town centre, or a university campus, and therefore the development would comply with CDP Policy 16 in this respect.

The applicant is proposing the introduction of sound proofing to the first floor party wall and the ground floor party wall to the proposed 4 and 5 bedroom. Subject to the installation of sound proofing prior to first occupation of the C4 use, as shown on the submitted plans to be secured via planning condition, there would not be any unacceptable transfer of noise to neighbouring properties. The Council's EHO Noise Action Team makes no objection to the application in this regard.