The Area Planning Committee (South and West) met to discuss planning applications in County Durham. Councillors approved an application for the erection of a 3,600-seated arena, a small lake, landscaped hillside performance area, performance bridge and associated works for 'Lost Feather' bird show at Kynren, Flatts Farm, and were minded to approve an application for the construction of 42 no. bungalows at land west of petrol filling station, Bank Top Terrace, Trimdon Village.

Kynren 'Lost Feather' Bird Show Arena

Councillors approved the application for the erection of a 3,600 seated arena, a small lake, landscaped hillside performance area, performance bridge and associated works for 'Lost Feather' bird show at Kynren, Flatts Farm, Toronto, Bishop Auckland.

The application site, measuring approximately 1.12 hectares, is intended to facilitate the start of the next phase of the Kynren development, through the erection of a second arena. The arena and the associated development would allow the staging of a show called the ‘Lost Feather’ utilising trained birds. The proposed arena would be oval in shape, with the seating located towards the southern part of the structure, a small lake would be located centrally in the arena while a landscaped hillside performance area and performance bridge would be located to the northern section of the structure. The external appearance of the arena would be designed to replicate the appearance of a bird's nest, utilising timber planked cladding walls and sculpted castings. The arena would have a ridge height of approximately 10m with a floor space of 4662sqm. Access to the arena would utilise existing pedestrian and vehicular access on the site.

The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) as it is considered an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) development having regard to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017¹ (the EIA Regulations). The planning officer's report noted that the site is located approximately 0.5km to the north of Bishop Auckland. The wider 48.7 hectare site, located on a peninsula on the River Wear, has been developed to provide a seated grandstand, and associated infrastructure to stage the ‘Kynren’ show. The site subject of this application relates to parcels of undeveloped and/or grazing land within the wider to the northern site boundary.

The report also noted that there are several heritage assets within proximity to the site. These include Auckland Castle (Grade I listed) and Parkland (Grade II listed) approximately 700km to the south, Bishop Auckland Town Centre Conservation Area which contains several listed buildings approximately 600m to the south, Binchester Roman Fort (Scheduled Ancient Monument) approximately 400m to the north, Newton Cap viaduct to south-west (Grade II listed) and Newton Cap Bridge (Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade II listed) approximately 700m to the east.

The Council’s Design and Conservation Team advised that the structures would have a presence in the setting of a number of designated assets as the entire Kynren site already does. However, the proposed arena would not be harmful and would be assimilated into the landscape alongside other similar structures. The prominence of large alien structures across the site continues to reduce as landscaping matures and the further landscaping proposed would further screen the site. Therefore, it is advised that whilst the development is within the setting of Listed Buildings, the proposal will be seen within the context of the wider site and there are no objections to the scheme from a conservation perspective protecting the existing historic environment.

Historic England also outlined the sensitive historic environment that the site its within. They advised that whilst recognising the presence of the existing Kynren development which could set a precedent for the proposal, it does have a moderately negative impact on the setting of the castle and conservation area. The proposed arena is smaller and would add to the sense of development but not greatly alter the current situation. In policy terms it is advised that this would represent less than substantial harm which would need to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The Gardens Trust raised concerns in relation to the gradual expansion of the development and urbanisation on Auckland Castle and Park. However, they advise that this is a relatively small-scale development and increased visual impact is unlikely to cause substantial harm to the heritage assets.

The report concluded that the development would result in ‘less than substantial harm’, for policy purposes in order to be considered acceptable this level of harm must be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. In this respect, as outlined above CDP Policy 7 identifies Kynren as a major attraction in Bishop Auckland and recognises it as a key addition to the County’s tourism, with associated social and economic benefits. This development would complement the existing offer on the site and would by nature build on the established benefits, as confirmed by Visit County Durham. It is therefore considered that the scheme can demonstrate overriding public benefits to outweigh the identified less than substantial harm and as such, the proposal would comply with CDP Policy 44 and Part 15 of the NPPF in this respect.

The planning officer's report noted that the Councils Ecology section have reviewed the submitted reports alongside historical data and report submitted on the initial applications for the development of the site. Whilst it is advised that the methodology of the reports and subsequent conclusions are sound, the cumulative loss of foraging habitat for badgers needs recognised. This will likely lead to the further displacement of the species from the site leading to an adverse impact in this location.

The report stated that:

The loss of foraging habitat for badgers is recognised and regrettable, however this impact was identified and anticipated in the determination of the initial and subsequent planning applications for the development of the site. In line with these assumptions, while badgers would still continue to use the site for foraging in a limited way, due to the cumulative loss of foraging habitat which could not be viably mitigated for, there would be an adverse impact on the badger population in this location. Within the wider context of County Durham there is a healthy and well spread population of badgers that is not under threat as a species. This impact needs to be weighed in the planning balance.

The planning officer's report concluded that the proposal was considered to be acceptable on balance given the significant socio-economic benefits and overriding public interests to an existing visitor attraction when weighed against the ecological harm and ‘less than substantial’ harm to designated heritage assets.

Land West of Petrol Filling Station, Bank Top Terrace, Trimdon Village

Councillors were minded to approve the application for the construction of 42 no. bungalows (as amended) at land west of petrol filling station, Bank Top Terrace, Trimdon Village.

G Spurgeon, Principal Planning Officer, gave a detailed presentation which included a site location, aerial photographs, site photographs, the proposed layout, landscaping and house types along with visualisation of before and after the planting took place. A site visit took place prior to the meeting for Members to assess the impact of the proposed developments and their relationship with their surroundings. Upon consultation Highways stated that there was not enough parking on site and further information was required on the nutrient neutrality calculations from Natural England. Internal consultees were concerned with the density of the site and biodiversity net gain would be provided onsite. There were five letters of objections based on the increased traffic and the visual impact of the development. Upon balance the benefits outweighed the harm and it was officers’ recommendation to approve the application.

Councillor C Varty, local member, addressed the committee in support of the application. She noted that she had supplied information in relation to the application which had not been included in the report. She was over the moon that new housing was to be built in Trimdon Village. She was concerned regarding the traffic as the main road was not safe to cross by pedestrians and welcomed the proposed crossing which was to be installed by the applicant. She was concerned that there was not going to be a new doctors surgery located in area to cater for the additional residents. She thought the main road should have the 60 mph speed limit reduced for safety reasons.

Mr Ridgeon, agent on behalf of the applicants Karbon and Durham Aged Miners addressed the committee in support of the application. He was aware that the application did not meet the requirements for the garden design but this would be community space designed for mobility. He highlighted that the layout did not include sufficient car parking spaces to meet the SPD requirements but the SPD did not consider 100% affordable bungalow housing. He required flexible wording to be included in the condition that related to the age range for the bungalows. He thanked planning officers for all their hard work on the application and asked members for approval.

Councillor D Brown had attended the site visit and asked for clarity on why the SuDs² basin would be located on a steep stretch of land away from the development. G Spurgeon, Principal Planning Officer, stated that it was unusual for the SuDs basin to be based in a different location to the development, however in this instance it would be located towards the bottom of the slope to the north of the development which had been accepted by the Local Flood Authority.

Councillor L Brown asked what the distance was to the nearest bus stop and whether the crossing point was viable as she was concerned for people who had mobility issues.

D Battensby, Principal DM Engineer confirmed that part of the application would be to provide a pedestrian refuge on the main road and that this would allow pedestrians to cross the road in two stages. He also advised that the signage on the island would be more conspicuous than the flexible bollards which would be illuminated.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the nearest bus stop was 400 metres to the south of the site.

Councillor E Adams had attended the site visit and had noticed that the entrance to the site was on the brow of the hill with speeding traffic. He was concerned that this would be unsafe and asked when the last speed survey was taken and when the last accident was recorded.

The Principal DM Engineer responded that the issue with visibility had been investigated as part of the application with an up to date speed survey being requested and provided. The consideration of the visibility for the junction included a visibility survey which took into account the brow of the hill and the visibility distances were based on the actual 85 percentile speeds in accordance with design standards.

Councillor E Adam was aware that further information was required from Natural England and if this would affect the application.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that information was still being awaited from Natural England on how many credits were required to be purchased to mitigate the nitrate for the development. A certificate from Natural England would need to be submitted to prove that credits had been paid for before formal approval could be given.

Councillor E Adam noted that a contribution was to be made to the NHS for a GP surgery but there was no mention of a new GP surgery for Trimdon Village and asked where the money would go.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the committee that the S106³ money would be ring fenced for the electoral division and therefore would not necessarily be allocated to Trimdon. It would be down the NHS to decide which GP the money would be allocated to. Councillor E Adams referenced that the application had six red, three amber and three green scores in the Sustainable Design Policy set out in the County Durham Plan. This was then amended to two reds, six amber and four greens. He was puzzled as to why officers on this basis recommended the application to be approved and asked for justification.

The Principal Planning Officer replied that further information to address some of the red scores had been provided since the most recent Design Review scoring. The informal path leading to the children’s play area were outside of the applicants control as the footpaths were to be retained by the Parish Council. Additional information was received with regards to the density of the site which was accepted. The character of the site based on the increased width of the structural landscaping was satisfactory and no longer warranted a red score.

Councillor J Atkinson sought clarity on the what the flexible condition in relation to age range that Mr Ridgeon had sought was.

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) explained that there was a condition included on the application that the development would be for people aged 55 and over only and that the lack of education mitigation was due to this therefore there was reluctance to remove or amend the condition as drafted. She explained that if there was a specific reason someone younger than age 55 needed to occupy on of the dwellings then they could approach the Council and the Council would look at it on a case by case basis.

Councillor G Richardson queried who would be responsible to erect a fence if live stock were to inhabit the field next to the development as this should not fall to the farmer.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the SuDs would not create any risk of flooding and to erect a fence would fall outside the red line boundary. There was no information on what the farmers plans were for the field but he would have to manage the live stock on the field if that was his intention.

Councillor C Varty stated that in the 21 years she had lived in the area there had been no live stock kept on that field.

Councillor E Adam asked about the concrete plinth that was situated on the land which he thought was an eye sore and queried if anything would be done about it to make the place more in keeping with the aesthetics.

Mr Ridgeon explained that the plinth fell on land which had different owners.