The Area Planning Committee (Central and East) of County Durham Council was scheduled to consider a range of planning applications, with a significant focus on the proposed change of use for Hopper House in Durham. Other applications included proposals for new dwellings in Bowburn and Thornley, the conversion of an agricultural barn in Trimdon Station, the creation of dog walking fields in Hesleden, and a variation of condition for a property in Durham.

Hopper House, 7 Atherton Street, Durham, DH1 4DJ

The committee was scheduled to discuss an application for the change of use of Hopper House from offices to purpose-built student accommodation (Sui Generis) with commercial space (Class E) and external alterations. The proposal included 45 self-contained studios, communal areas, and an outdoor amenity space. The report indicated that the application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement to secure contributions towards public open spaces and active travel improvements around the North Road Roundabout.

Concerns raised by objectors included the principle of development, specifically the loss of office space and the perceived lack of need for further purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA), as well as design matters and the future use of land subject to a Stopping Up Order. The applicant's statement highlighted that the vacant building required investment and that the proposals would enhance the conservation area. Durham University had been consulted and raised no objection, confirming meaningful consultation had taken place. The report detailed that while the overall student population was not projected to grow significantly, there was evidence of strong demand for high-quality, city-centre PBSA, with comparable schemes operating at or near full capacity. The proposal was considered to increase the range and choice of student accommodation in the city.

The report also addressed the impact on heritage assets, noting that the building is within the Durham City Conservation Area and has views of listed landmarks. The proposed external alterations were considered to be an enhancement, giving the building a more contemporary aesthetic. Concerns about proposed dormers creating a discordant feature in the roofscape were addressed, with the report stating they would be subordinate and set back from the elevations.

Residential amenity for both future occupiers and neighbours was assessed, with no objections raised by Environmental Health subject to conditions. Highway safety and parking were also considered, with the development being 'car-free' due to its city centre location. The proposal included seven car parking spaces for the office element and staff parking, along with 46 cycle spaces. A Section 106 contribution was sought for active travel improvements. Ecology, drainage, and contaminated land were also reviewed, with no objections subject to appropriate conditions and licences.

Land to the South West of 27 Durham Road West, Bowburn, DH6 5AU

The committee was scheduled to consider an outline application for the erection of up to 20 dwellings and associated open space, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), and infrastructure, with access being the only matter reserved. The application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement. Objections had been raised by Cassop-cum-Quarrington Parish Council, Bowburn Local History Society, Bowburn and Parkhill Community Partnership, and the City of Durham Trust, citing issues of highway safety, protection of a hedge, and cycle access. The report noted that the Highways Engineer had no concerns regarding the proposed access and cyclist safety. The Section 106 agreement was intended to secure contributions for open space, education, biodiversity net gain monitoring, and 15% affordable housing on site. The Parish Council highlighted a need for bungalows within the area, as identified in their Neighbourhood Plan, and suggested the site could provide a mix of facilities for older persons or those with disabilities. The applicant's representative emphasised that this was an outline application and that detailed matters would be addressed at the reserved matters stage.

Land to the South of South Parade, Thornley, DH6 3EG

This application was for the erection of 22 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping, and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement. Concerns raised included the loss of open space, traffic issues, and the impact on local services. Planning Officers noted that the open space lost was of poor quality and that Highways Officers had no concerns regarding the impact on the highway network or safety. A construction management plan was to mitigate issues during the construction phase, and contributions would be secured for school places, NHS capacity, and open space. The applicant's agent noted that two properties were bungalows and four were ground-floor flats suitable for older persons.

Land to the North of 3 Fairlawns Close, Trimdon Station, TS29 6HZ

The committee was scheduled to discuss an application for the change of use of an agricultural barn to a residential dwelling, with surrounding land designated as domestic amenity space, and the installation of an air source heat pump and associated retrospective access. The application was recommended for refusal. No objections were received from the Highways Section, Ecology, Environmental Health, or Contaminated Land teams. However, the Landscape Team raised objections. Local Members supported the application. The Planning Officer's report stated that the existing building had limited aesthetic appeal and that the proposed design would have a negative urbanising impact, contrary to County Durham Plan (CDP) Policies 10, 29, and 39, and Paragraphs 84 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Local Members and the applicant's agent spoke in support, arguing that the conversion of an existing building was different from new development and that the proposals aligned with national and local policy.

Land North West of Ebony Stud 3, Weems Farm, Mickle Hill Road, Hesleden, TS27 4PY

This application was for the change of use of agricultural land to two secure dog walking fields, with associated access, parking, timber shelters, fencing, and gates. It was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement. No objections were received from Highways, Ecology, Tree, Environmental Health, Landscape, Contaminated Land, or Drainage teams. The Local Member was supportive. The proposal was considered to support a rural enterprise in line with CDP Policy 10(a) and NPPF Paragraph 88. While some agricultural land of best and most versatile quality would be affected, the proposed use was not expected to result in permanent soil loss and could be reverted. The social, environmental, and biodiversity benefits were considered to outweigh the loss of agricultural land.

Leazes Cottage, Leazes Place, Durham, DH1 1RE

The committee was scheduled to consider a variation of condition application concerning an increase in the height of a garden wall. The original consent was for a half-a-metre-high wall with rounded coping stones and railings. The retrospective application sought to allow for a wall approximately one metre high with flat coping stones and no railings. The City of Durham Parish Council objected, citing that the increased height was contrary to CDP Policies 29 and 44, and Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP) Policies H2 and S1. DCC Design and Conservation Officers had not objected, stating it was in keeping with the setting. However, the City of Durham Trust and neighbours had objected, noting the retrospective nature and incongruity with the setting. The report recommended approval, subject to conditions. Councillor L Brown, representing the City of Durham Parish Council, spoke against the application, detailing the property's complex planning history and the importance of maintaining the historic and architectural qualities of Durham City. A local resident also spoke against the application, highlighting the discrepancy between the approved plans and the constructed wall and the historical context of planning breaches at the property.

The meeting was scheduled to be chaired by Councillor S Healy, with Councillor S Franklin acting as Vice-Chair. Other members of the committee were also in attendance.