The Area Planning Committee (North) is scheduled to meet on Thursday 29 January 2026 to consider a single planning application. The application concerns a proposal to change the use of a residential garage to a dwelling house, including associated parking and garden space, at Land To The East Of 2 Standish Street, South Moor.

Change of Use of Residential Garage to Dwelling House at Land To The East Of 2 Standish Street, South Moor

The committee will consider an application for the change of use of a residential garage to a single dwelling house (Use Class C3) at Land To The East Of 2 Standish Street, South Moor, DH9 7AD. The proposal also includes an extension to the north elevation of the garage building, parking, and garden space. This application is largely identical to a scheme that was previously refused in September 2025.

The report pack indicates that the Highways Authority has objected to the scheme, stating that it fails to demonstrate that safe and suitable access would be achieved in line with necessary highway standards. The applicant has been informed of this objection, but the scheme has not been amended to address the concerns.

Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would not relate well to the existing built form and would represent inappropriate development of poor design, which is at odds with the layout and character of the surrounding area. The scheme is also deemed to provide an insufficient level of amenity for future occupiers of the dwelling in terms of light, outlook, and privacy.

The report highlights that due to an absence of a five-year housing land supply, the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) applies. This means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. However, in this case, the report suggests that the provision of a single dwelling would deliver extremely modest economic and social benefits, which would not outweigh the harm identified in terms of the character and appearance of the area, residential amenity, and highway safety.

The recommendation within the report pack is for the application to be refused for the following reasons:

• The development would have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area.
• The proposal would provide a poor standard of amenity to future occupiers of the dwelling.
• The scheme fails to demonstrate that safe and suitable access would be achieved.

The report details the site and proposals, noting that the application site comprises a detached garage plot. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, with detached garden and garage plots to the north and south. The proposal involves converting the existing garage and adding a small extension.

The planning history section notes a previous refusal for a similar change of use in September 2025 (DM/24/02782/FPA) and an approval for the erection of a detached brick-built garage in October 2020 (DM/20/02436/FPA).

Relevant planning policies from the County Durham Plan (CDP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are outlined, including those relating to the quantity of development, development on unallocated sites, sustainable transport, sustainable design, amenity, and pollution. Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) concerning Residential Amenity Standards and Parking and Accessibility are also referenced.

Consultation responses from statutory consultees, including the Highways Authority, indicate an objection due to unresolved safety concerns regarding access. Internal consultees, such as Spatial Policy, also raise concerns about the scheme conflicting with policy requirements, particularly regarding its relationship to existing development and the quality of design. Environmental Health has raised no objections, subject to conditions regarding construction works and contaminated land. Public responses have not been received.

The applicant's statement argues that amendments have been made to address previous concerns, but suggests that the planning officer maintains a position from the earlier refusal. The applicant also raises points regarding biodiversity net gain requirements and highway access standards, suggesting that the council's interpretation of guidance is overly strict for an unadopted road.

The assessment section of the report delves into the principle of development, highway safety issues, visual impact, residential amenity, ecology, ground conditions, developer contributions, and broadband connection. It reiterates the concerns regarding highway safety, visual impact, and residential amenity, concluding that the limited benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the identified harm and policy conflicts.

The report concludes by recommending refusal of the application for the reasons outlined above. The Public Sector Equality Duty has been considered, with officers assessing that there are no identified equality impacts.