The County Planning Committee of Durham County Council met on Tuesday 2 June 2026 to discuss several planning applications. The committee resolved to defer a decision on a proposed tourism development at Greencroft Park, Lanchester, due to outstanding ecological information regarding badgers. They approved a revised scheme for the redevelopment of the Prince Bishops Shopping Centre in Durham City, which will include purpose-built student accommodation and commercial units, and also approved a hybrid planning application for a new housing development of up to 350 dwellings on land north of York Hill Road, Spennymoor.

Tourism Development at Greencroft Park, Lanchester

The committee considered an outline application for a tourism development of up to 140 lodges, a spa, and ancillary food and retail offerings at Greencroft Park, Lanchester. The site is located in open countryside, designated as an Area of High Landscape Value and within a locally listed historic parkland.

Officers recommended refusal of the application primarily due to concerns about the significant harm to the heritage and intrinsic character of the countryside, the lack of demonstrated essential and functional need for the specific location, and insufficient information regarding the impact on badgers.

During the meeting, concerns were raised by Councillor David Smith, representing Lanchester Parish Council, who echoed the planning officer's recommendation for refusal, citing harm to the landscape and lack of transport sustainability. Local members, Councillor Darren Grimes and Councillor Karen Allison, spoke in favour of the development, highlighting the economic benefits, job creation, and the need for tourism accommodation in the area. They also noted that the scheme would restore heritage assets.

Leslie Johnson from the Durham Badger Group expressed strong objections due to the applicant's alleged disregard for ecological advice regarding badgers. Chris Smith from Lanchester Wines also supported refusal, citing uncertainty surrounding a separate, interconnected woodland creation proposal and questioning the suitability of the area for development if it was deemed too sensitive for commercial forestry.

Michelle Robinson, speaking on behalf of the applicant, True North, argued that the scheme offered significant economic and tourism potential, and that heritage assets would be restored. She stated that badger presence was a technical matter that could be addressed through mitigation and licensing.

Following extensive debate, the committee voted to defer the decision to allow for further ecological survey work regarding badgers.

Redevelopment of Prince Bishops Shopping Centre, Durham

The committee considered a revised full planning application for the redevelopment of the Prince Bishops Shopping Centre in Durham City. The revised scheme, which replaces an approved hotel with additional purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA), includes partial demolition of the shopping centre above mall level, the erection of replacement commercial units (Class E), and PBSA (Sui Generis) at Level 5 and above. It also features a new outdoor public square and public realm improvements.

The application was recommended for approval by officers, who noted that a similar scheme had been granted planning permission in 2024, providing a fallback position. While acknowledging some limited policy conflict regarding student amenity (privacy and light) and sustainable transport (cycling routes), officers concluded that the development would largely comply with the County Durham Plan and Durham City Neighbourhood Plan, representing sustainable development. The economic and employment benefits, along with the preservation and enhancement of the World Heritage Site setting, were considered to outweigh the identified harms.

Councillor David Freeman, a local ward member, raised concerns about the reduction in Section 106 contributions for open space provision, questioning the loss of £170,000. Officers explained the calculation methodology and the rationale behind the on-site improvements. Councillor Mark Wilkes also expressed disappointment at the loss of the hotel and questioned the long-term viability of PBSA if overseas student numbers declined.

The applicant's representative, James Taylor of Citrus Group, highlighted the partnership with US firm Landmark Properties, a major student housing provider, and emphasised the scheme's economic benefits, including investment and job creation. He explained that the hotel use was no longer viable due to buildability and cost constraints.

After debate, the committee voted to approve the application, subject to conditions and a legal agreement for open space and healthcare contributions.

Housing Development at Land North of York Hill Road, Spennymoor

The committee considered a hybrid planning application for the erection of 45 dwellings with full planning permission and up to 305 dwellings with outline planning permission on land north of York Hill Road, Spennymoor. The site is in the countryside and not allocated for housing in the County Durham Plan.

Officers recommended approval, noting that while the site conflicted with Policies 6 and 10 of the County Durham Plan due to its visual relationship with the settlement and its countryside location, the County's significant housing land supply shortfall meant the tilted balance under Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF applied. Officers expressed confidence that the development would contribute to housing land supply, supported by a package of active travel mitigation measures and highway improvements.

Objectors, including local residents and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), raised concerns about increased traffic, strain on local services (GP and schools), loss of agricultural land, and the visual impact on the landscape. David and Lorna Saunders, local residents, specifically raised concerns about highway safety, drainage, and the enforcement of legal agreements. James Seedsbreed, representing the applicant Banks Property, highlighted the economic and social benefits, including job creation and contributions to local infrastructure.

Councillor Liz Maddison questioned the benefits of the development for Spennymoor residents, arguing that the area already had sufficient housing and lacked infrastructure. Councillor Mark Wilkes expressed concerns about highway safety, particularly regarding the proposed access and parking arrangements.

Following debate, the committee voted to approve the application, subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement to secure affordable housing, contributions towards education, healthcare, open space, sports infrastructure, active travel improvements, and biodiversity net gain monitoring.

The meeting also included discussions on apologies, substitute members, declarations of interest, and the minutes of the previous meeting.