The Area Planning Committee (South and West) was scheduled to convene to address several planning applications, including residential developments, extra care housing, and modifications to existing structures.

Housing Development in Newton Aycliffe

The committee was to consider an application for the erection of 13 dwellings with associated infrastructure, car parking and landscaping on the Site Of Former Horndale Working Mens Club, Meadowfield Way, Newton Aycliffe. The applicant, Oaktree Living Ltd, proposed a scheme consisting of 2 two-bed bungalows, 6 two-bed dwellings, and 5 three-bed dwellings, with 100% affordable units, to be secured via a Section 106 agreement¹. The planning report noted that a previous application for 19 dwellings on the site was refused in 2007 due to concerns over design, layout, loss of trees, and lack of interconnectivity with surrounding footpaths. The planning report stated that Great Aycliffe Town Council objected to the original 19-unit scheme due to insufficient off-road parking spaces. The planning report also noted that the Council's Spatial Policy team advised that the redevelopment of this previously developed site would be consistent with national and local planning policy. The planning report stated that the Council's Education Provision Lead Officer had concluded that contributions would be necessary for Nursery Pupils (£17,677) and SEND Pupils (£10,917), to be secured via a section 106 Agreement. The planning report stated that the applicant had offered to improve the surfacing of the footpath that runs to the north/north-east of the site owned by the Council. The planning report stated that the Council's Design Review Team had concerns primarily relating to over dominance of hardstanding / parking spaces within internal streets. The planning report stated that the Council's Arboricultural Officer advised that the loss of a relatively small number of existing trees (12 individual trees and one small group) would have a low medium-term impact, given the number of trees now retained. The planning report stated that the Council's Ecology Officer raised no objection as net gains in biodiversity would be achieved onsite and had undertaken a Habitats Regulations Assessment confirming that the required amount of credits has been secured via a signed Sales Agreement between the landowner of a nutrient neutrality mitigation scheme outside of the County (Darlington Borough Council) and the applicant. The planning report stated that the Council's Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Nuisance) team raised no objection subject to conditions. The planning report stated that the Council's Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Air Quality) team considered it unlikely to have an impact on air quality during operational phase, but that the proposal was likely to be a dust generating development during its construction phase. The planning report stated that the Council's Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Contamination) team raised no objections subject to conditions. The planning report stated that the NHS North East and North Cumbria Integrated Care Board confirmed that no financial contribution was required. The planning report stated that three letters of objection and one letter of support had been received from the public. The planning report stated that the applicant had undertaken extensive engagement with Officers of the Authority including the design review panel and had taken advice on board, reducing the number of dwellings proposed to 13. The planning report stated that the applicant had proposed financial Contributions to Nursery and SEND provision, and open space contributions to be secured via a S106 agreement, and a Grampian condition to the application to improve the surfacing of the footpath that runs to the north/north-east of the site owned by the Council. The planning report stated that the Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land, subsequently Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF² was engaged where a development does not accord with the Plan as a whole. The planning report stated that the economic and social benefits of housing delivery, in the context of the identified shortfall must also be given significant weight in the planning balance. The planning report stated that the principle of re-developing this site was considered to be acceptable under CDP Policy 6 and Policy H1 of the Great Aycliffe Neighbourhood Plan. The planning report stated that the site had access to local services and facilities to serve the development proposed and whilst the majority of wider service provision is within the town centre these can be easily accessed by public transport. The planning report stated that the Highway authority raised no concerns regarding the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed development adversely affecting the capacity of the surrounding highway network. The planning report stated that conditions were recommended to secure the installation of the parking spaces, electric vehicle charging points and external cycle storage for each plot and the submission of a Construction Management Plan. The planning report stated that the revised scheme (13no. units) was considered by the Council's Internal Design Review Team in accordance with CDP Policy 29. The planning report stated that the Council's Internal Design Review Team had concerns relating to the lack of a footpath along the drives of plots 3 – 7 and potential to create informal pedestrian routes to plots 1 and 2. The planning report stated that the Council's Internal Design Review Team had concerns relating to the internal streets being over dominated by hardstanding for parking with limited natural surveillance from dwellings. The planning report stated that the Council's Internal Design Review Team had concerns in that the site has limited public space and in addition the SUDS proposal failed to meet policy requirements. The planning report stated that the Council's Internal Design Review Team had concerns that the streets within the site were not optimised to allow them to function as a social space due to the dominance of highway and parking. The planning report stated that the Council's Internal Design Review Team noted that the number of units has reduced, and the existing landscape character is retained. The planning report stated that the Council's Lead Local Flood Authority had indicated their satisfaction with the principle of the proposed drainage strategy, advising that sufficient attenuation and treatment of surface water runoff would be provided. The planning report stated that the Council's Ecologist had requested that a condition is imposed to secure the installation of 6no. integrated bird boxes. The planning report stated that the applicant had been successful in securing the purchase of 28.30kg TN/year via a signed Sales Agreement with a third party landowner of a nutrient neutrality mitigation scheme at Preston Lodge Farm which lies outside the County boundary (Darlington Borough Council). The planning report stated that a separate Unilateral Undertaking (UU) under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act had been agreed with Darlington Borough Council to implement, manage and monitor the mitigation measures. The planning report stated that the LPA had undertaken its own HRA which had concluded there would be no adverse impact on the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland SPA. The planning report stated that the Council's Affordable Housing Team considered the mix was suitable and advises that internal data collaborates high rental demand. The planning report stated that the applicant was willing to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure 12 of the dwellings as affordable / social rent, plus one dwelling as Rent to Buy accommodation. The planning report stated that the proposal would provide 2no. bungalows and 11no. two storey dwellings. The planning report stated that the 2no. bungalows would accord with the policy requirement for two units to be suitable for older people which a welcome aspect of the application. The planning report stated that each of the bungalows and 2 bed house types (8 units in total) would be built to comply with M4(2) standards[^4]. The planning report stated that the Council's Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA) 2018 is considered the most up to date assessment of need. The planning report stated that the Council's Spatial Policy Team confirm that a contribution of £22,608.30 should be sought to provide off-site open space. The planning report stated that the Council's Education Team had confirmed that in order to mitigate the impact of the development on Nursery and SEND provision a total of £28,594 was sought towards increasing school capacity to mitigate the impacts of the development. The planning report stated that the NHS had been consulted as part of the application and confirm that due to the size of the development there is no requirement to mitigate the developments impact in respect of G.P provision. The planning report stated that the application was supported by a Phase 1 Geoenvironmental Preliminary Investigation and Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report. The planning report stated that the Council's Contaminated Land Officer, had indicated their satisfaction with the findings of the report and the conclusions drawn. The planning report stated that the submitted Sustainability Statement advises that the development would be designed to accord with Part L of the Building Regulations to achieve a 31% reduction in CO2 emissions and would include the installation of air source heat pumps and photovoltaics, as well as measures relating to resource efficiency, water usage and construction phase energy use. The planning report stated that due the location of the development adjacent to the settlement, there would be existing high-speed broadband availability in the area to comply with CDP Policy 27. The planning report stated that objectors had raised concerns regarding the proposed development resulting in the loss of views over the site and the impact on property values, but that these were not material planning considerations and so do not warrant the refusal of the application.

Supported Living and Extra Care Housing in Bishop Auckland

The committee was also scheduled to discuss an outline application (DM/25/01782/OUT) for the demolition of an existing launderette and dog grooming parlour and the construction of proposed supported living and extra care housing with communal facilities, adjoining warden's house and associated works at 64A Proudfoot Drive, Bishop Auckland. The applicant, KSH (North East) Ltd, sought outline consent with layout, scale, appearance, and access to be considered, and landscaping reserved for future matters. The planning report stated that the proposed building was to be constructed from red/brown brick with red roof tiles. The planning report stated that Bishop Auckland Town Council objected to the application, citing concerns over the loss of key community services, inadequate justification for the change of use, impact on residential amenity, highways and access concerns, design and integration, and sustainability and drainage. The planning report stated that Northumbrian Water had provided no specific comments, but noted that surface water drainage was proposed to their combined sewer network. The planning report stated that the Local Lead Flood Authority had advised that drainage information was acceptable. The planning report stated that the Local Highway Authority considered that the proposal could not be supported due to highway and pedestrian safety issues. The planning report stated that the Council's Adult and Health Services team advised there was no need for this provision, and they do not support its development, would not utilise it and consider that allowing it to proceed would present significant risks to the Council. The planning report stated that the Council's Planning Policy team had provided advice on Policy requirements. The planning report stated that the Council's Design team had raised concern regarding the scale and massing of the proposal, materials proposed and lack of external amenity space. The planning report stated that the Council's Ecology team had raised no objection. The planning report stated that the Council's Landscape team had noted that landscaping was reserved for future matters. The planning report stated that the Council's Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) team had raised no objection subject to conditions. The planning report stated that the Council's Environmental Health (Nuisance) team had raised no objection subject to pre-commencement conditions relating to a construction management plan. The planning report stated that the NHS had confirmed that no contribution was required. The planning report stated that four letters of support/representation had been received, including from the current owners of the site. The planning report stated that Rob Elliott, Town Councillor, had objected for reasons including overdevelopment, loss of community facility and that other properties should be considered. The planning report stated that Councillor Tom Redmond had raised concerns about the loss of the laundrette, which he considered remained a valued local service. The planning report stated that the applicant had offered to open up the laundry area within the scheme to the wider public, and therefore the Launderette is safeguarded. The planning report stated that the applicant considered that the wider streetscene is not uniform, and the church building to the north establishes a clear precedent for larger built form in this location. The planning report stated that the applicant considered that the proposed building has been designed as a transitional element, with articulated rooflines and sympathetic materials to ensure it integrates appropriately within the local townscape. The planning report stated that the applicant considered that the parking provision is safe and functional, with swept-path analysis confirming that vehicles can manoeuvre without issue. The planning report stated that the applicant considered that the proposal delivers a substantial package of social and community benefits including independence and dignity for vulnerable adults, new local employment, reduced pressure on overstretched Adult Social Care services and enhanced landscaping, community garden, and allotment space. The planning report stated that the site is considered to be within the built-up area of Bishop Auckland. The planning report stated that the site is surrounded by a mix of both residential and commercial properties and as such criterion a) is considered to be met as the provision of supported living in this location would be considered an appropriate and compatible use, subject to compliance with CDP Policy 15. The planning report stated that there is no concern that the site would lead to coalescence with neighbouring settlements or be considered ribbon or backland development due to the site being contained within an established residential area bordered by residential properties, open space and main access roads. The planning report stated that the whole of the site surrounding the existing building is considered as Amenity Green Space within the Councils Open Space Needs Assessment (with the exception of the existing car park area). The planning report stated that the site is considered to have easy access to modes of sustainable transport and local facilities. The planning report stated that the Council's Adult Services team have confirmed that there is not a need for this provision, and they do not offer support for the proposal. The planning report stated that the Council as Local Planning Authority have no control over the occupants and whilst the concerns of the Adults Services team in respect of safeguarding and financial liability are noted these are not material planning considerations which can affect the determination of this application. The planning report stated that a lack of justification for a need for the proposal and its intended occupiers has been provided, contrary to Policy 15 i) of the County Durham Plan. The planning report stated that whilst open space is located to the front and rear of the site, the proposal benefits from a lack of any private external amenity space that residents could utilise the proposal therefore would be contrary to criterion l) as secure outdoor space is not provided that would allow residents to spend time safely outside when the weather is suitable. The planning report stated that it is not clear what age of people would occupy they property however, it is considered that should the application be considered acceptable, a suitably worded condition could be added. The planning report stated that the proposal is considered too large and would be constructed of inappropriate materials appearing as an incongruous addition to the streetscene. The planning report stated that the proposal is considered contrary to Policy 29 of the County Durham Plan and Part 12 of the NPPF. The planning report stated that the proposal would not result in any significant overlooking issues or loss of amenity to surrounding residents as the distances far exceed those set out within the Councils Residential Amenity Standards Document. The planning report stated that the NDSS states that 1 bed 1 person properties should provide 39sqm gross internal floor areas and 1m2 of storage. The planning report stated that there is also considered to be a lack of private external amenity space available due to the footprint of the property covering a large are of land and no usable space being provided. The planning report stated that the proposal is considered contrary to CDP Policy 31 and Part 15 of the NPPF due to an inappropriate level of private external amenity space being provided for future residents and a lack of suitable living space for future residents. The planning report stated that the application has been assessed by the Council's Highway team and they have confirmed that suitable access to the adopted highway has been provided which is considered sufficient to support 2-way vehicle movements. The planning report stated that the existing use would generate a number of vehicular trips and parking demand which can be netted off from the proposed use. The planning report stated that the impact on the highway network is deemed minimal and would not cause a highway safety concern. The planning report stated that in accordance with the Council's Parking & Accessibility standards SPD, parking must be provided at a rate of 1 per 3 bed units resulting in 6 spaces, a further 2 spaces are required for the residential unit proposed for the manager to live in as well as 1no. disabled space. The planning report stated that to enable a vehicle to adequately manoeuvre in/out of a parking space, a 6m clear distance directly behind is required, but that it is evident this distance cannot be achieved for the 4no. most southerly parking spaces. The planning report stated that the Local Highway Authority is concerned for the potential of vehicular conflict with parked cars in the spaces either side of the turning head and the very limited distance between the building lines the driver would have to navigate. The planning report stated that the bin collection point has also been placed in an unacceptable location. The planning report stated that the application cannot be supported on highway and pedestrian safety issues and would be considered contrary to Policy 21 of the County Durham Plan and the Parking and Accessibility SPD. The planning report stated that the Council's Tree Officer has confirmed that initially insufficient information had been received however further information was submitted which includes an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) along with tree protection details. The planning report stated that the Council's Ecologist have confirmed that the bat survey report produced by RH Ecological services is considered sufficient to support the application and the nocturnal survey did not identify any roosts. The planning report stated that the ecologist has indicated within their report that a net gain can be achieved on site however, it is understood that the grounds will be used as a private garden space for care home residents and therefore, it is unlikely that BNG will be able to be secured in this case. The planning report stated that the Land Contamination Officer has assessed the historical maps and submitted Phase 1 with respect to land contamination. The planning report stated that the Phase 1 has identified the need for further site investigation in the form of a Phase 2 which if identifies would also require the submission of Phase 3 Remediation Strategy. The planning report stated that as specialist housing is proposed, it would need to be determined whether the occupants are likely to be using facilities in the locality and whether they have the freedom to do so unsupervised. The planning report stated that a financial contribution toward other green infrastructure typologies would still be required. The planning report stated that the total contribution would therefore, be £11, 582.10 and if the proposal was acceptable, this financial contribution would need to be secured through a legal agreement. The planning report stated that the NHS have confirmed that they have no comments to make on this proposal.

Extension of Rear Raised Platform in Winston, Darlington

The committee was also scheduled to review an application (DM/25/02178/VOC) seeking a variation of condition 2 (approved plans) pursuant to planning permission DM/24/02991/FPA to extend a rear raised platform (partially retrospective) at 8 Church Mews, Winston, Darlington. The applicants, Mr and Ms Peter And Kully Robinson And, sought to retain an enlarged raised platform, which had already been constructed. The planning report stated that the application site comprises a split-level dwelling located to the eastern side of Winston in the southwest of the County. The planning report stated that the property appears single storey from the north and two storeys from the south due to the sloping land levels of the site and features a two-storey extension to the rear with a first-floor balcony which, following the approval of planning permission earlier this year, has been extended. The planning report stated that the extension sits upon an existing timber raised platform that spans the full width of the rear garden but features chamfered edges to both sides. The planning report stated that the site is located within an Area of Higher Landscape Value and backs onto an area of Amenity Green Space which includes a group of trees with Tree Preservation Order status. The planning report stated that the Grade I listed Church of St Andrew lies over 85m to the northeast. The planning report stated that the original raised platform projected 1.7 metres from the rear of the approved extension, but that the works that have been undertaken have extended this by 1.2 metres, resulting in a total depth of 2.9 metres from the rear of the approved extension. The planning report stated that unlike the previous structure, the new platform features square, non-chamfered corners, creating a fully rectangular layout that spans the width of the neighbouring boundary. The planning report stated that the raised platform has an overall height of approximately 2.6 metres above ground level. The planning report stated that 1.8 metre high fencing would be erected along either side of the raised platform to prevent views into the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties, resulting in the fencing sitting approximately 1.3 metres higher than the existing fence at its highest point. The planning report stated that a 1.8 metre high obscure glazed balustrade is also proposed to be installed to the inside of the stairs to the east of the platform, with a 1.1 metre high clear glazed balustrade to be installed across the width of the platform at its rear. The planning report stated that Winston Parish Council objected to the application on the grounds that the enlarged raised platform would reduce neighbours' privacy, with the additional glazed balustrades and fencing resulting in loss of light and harm to the landscape setting and views of the nearby church, and appears inconsistent with the property's original approved plans. The planning report stated that four individuals had provided letters of objections, including on behalf of Winston Parish Council and from Councillor Jillian Campbell. The planning report stated that Councillor Jillian Campbell had requested that the application be determined by the planning committee raising concerns over the enlarged raised platform allowing greater views into the rear gardens of the two neighbouring properties and the additional fencing causing a loss of light, overshadowing and being visually dominant. The planning report stated that the applicants had worked closely with Durham County Council Planning Department on the substantial works carried out at No 8 Church Mews since January 2025 to date, as well as the relevant regulatory bodies to ensure the works were carried out to the required standards. The planning report stated that the applicants had made efforts prior to moving in to engage and interact with all relevant parties to ensure that any works which caused disruptions or inconveniences due to the renovation were addressed in a timely manner or in fact not completed at all. The planning report stated that the two properties that would be most affected by the development are the adjoining dwellings 7 and 9 Church Mews. The planning report stated that the occupants of both properties have submitted objections to the application. The planning report stated that the Planning Officer had carried out site visits to the host dwelling and the neighbouring properties at 7 and 9 Church Mews to assess the proposal and its impact. The planning report stated that the erection of 1.8 metre high fencing along the outer edge of the length of the extended raised platform would provide effective mitigation to prevent views back towards the habitable rooms within the rear elevations of the neighbouring properties and into the upper portions of their rear gardens. The planning report stated that neither the raised platform or the increased fence height is considered to result in significant overshadowing or loss of light to neighbouring habitable room windows or the closest parts of the rear gardens. The planning report stated that the use of the enlarged raised platform is not considered to give rise to unreasonable amenity impacts in terms of noise that would warrant refusal of the application. The planning report stated that the raised platform has been constructed using stone pillars to match the materials of the existing property, with glazed balustrading and additional fencing to be installed. The planning report stated that raised patios and balconies are a characteristic feature of the properties due to the steeply sloping nature of the site, with the host property featuring a glazed first floor extension and both neighbouring properties accommodating timber balconies. The planning report stated that the development is not considered to adversely affect the character or appearance of the wider surrounding landscape. The planning report stated that the PROW No. 11 runs to the south-east along the River Tees at a significantly lower level with intervening mature trees restricting views. The planning report stated that the concerns raised by objectors over the proximity of the extended raised platform to the shared boundary, as well as causing potential difficulties in accessing the fence for maintenance and leading to rainwater rotting the base of the existing fence, relate to private maintenance and boundary responsibilities and are therefore considered civil issues between landowners, rather than material planning considerations. The planning report stated that the application is for a householder development which falls within one of the exceptions where BNG is not required, given this the proposal is in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Legislation. The planning report stated that in the determination of a variation of condition application (Section 73), the LPA should decide whether planning permission should be granted subject to conditions differing from those subjects to which the previous permission was granted (or that it should be granted unconditionally). The planning report stated that if the variation sought is considered unacceptable then the application should be refused and the wording of the condition on the previous planning permission would continue to subsist/apply to the development.