The Area Planning Committee (South and West) met to consider planning applications for a self-build home in Stanhope, a care home in Newton Aycliffe, and a dwelling with a detached garage in Chilton. The committee was scheduled to review the minutes from their meetings on 11 September 2025 and 18 September 2025.

DM/22/03629/FPA - Hawkshead Place, Newton Aycliffe

The committee was scheduled to consider an application for the erection of a 62-bedroom care home at Hawkshead Place, Newton Aycliffe, on the site of a former club.

The proposed care home would have 29 beds on the ground floor and 33 on the first floor, with associated day rooms. The building would be constructed from red brick with cream render and a grey roof. Car parking would be provided to the front of the building, with landscaping around the perimeter.

Great Aycliffe Town Council had raised no objections to the proposal.

Adult and Health Services initially raised some concerns, but after discussions with the applicant, they had no objections due to the nature of the people that would occupy the site.

The NHS had stated that no contribution was required.

Former Councillor Eddy Adams had raised concerns that there was inadequate visitor parking built into the design, which would impact on the existing location, and that strict management of the construction site was essential due to the close vicinity of a large number of bungalows that border the site.

The planning officer had recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

DM/25/00920/FPA - Church House, Stanhope

The committee was scheduled to consider an application for the erection of a self-build home at Church House, 78 Front Street, Stanhope, Bishop Auckland. The application site is located within the Stanhope Conservation Area.

The proposed four-bedroom dwelling would be built into the slope of the site, with bedrooms on the ground floor and living space on the first floor. The property would appear two storeys from the south-west elevation and 1.5 storeys facing north-east. A double garage would be located at the bottom of the slope. Retaining walls and steps would also be installed.

The application was being reported to the committee at the request of a Councillor to ensure that members could fully evaluate the application and the process was seen as open and transparent.

Spatial Policy had raised concerns that the proposed dwelling may appear overly prominent within the surrounding area and have implications on the amenity and privacy of neighbouring properties due to the topography of the site.

The Design and Conservation team had stated that the dwelling would be poorly related to the plan form of the historic settlement and as a result the incongruous nature would be further reinforced.

The planning officer had recommended that the application be refused.

DM/25/02099/FPA - Woodland Barn, Chilton, Ferryhill

The committee was scheduled to discuss a part-retrospective application for the erection of a new dwelling, including a detached garage, at Woodland Barn, Chilton, Ferryhill.

The application site is located in the countryside, approximately 700 metres from the eastern edge of Chilton, and is adjacent to a small cluster of residential dwellings to its east and south. The site is within the setting of Great Chilton Farmhouse, a Grade II listed building, and Chilton Hall, a Grade II listed Park and Garden.

The proposed dwelling would be single storey, with habitable roof space above the ground floor. The detached, two-car garage is also designed to feature a floor above in its roof space, to be used for storage.

The application was being reported to the committee at the request of Councillor Joe Quinn on the grounds that the development is acceptable in principle and there is no objection from neighbours.

Spatial Policy had stated that the proposals fail to accord with Policy 10 of the County Durham Plan, as they do not comprise the change of use of an existing building, and that the proposals also fail to accord with Policy 12 as it has not clearly been evidenced that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently in this location.

The Design and Conservation team had stated that the setting of the designated heritage asset would be preserved.

Natural England had raised no objection subject to appropriate mitigation being secured by means of condition to secure nutrient neutrality and a habitat management plan.

The planning officer had recommended that the application be refused.