DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Friday, 12 September 2008 10.00 a.m.

Council Chamber, Council Offices, Spennymoor

AGENDA AND REPORTS

Printed on Recycled Paper

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE Friday, 12 September 2008

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To notify the Chairman of any items that appear later in the agenda in which you may have an interest. (Pages 1 - 4)

3. MINUTES To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 th August 2008. (Pages 5 - 8)

4. APPLICATIONS - BOROUGH MATTERS To consider the attached schedule of applications, which are to be determined by this Council. (Pages 9 - 30)

5. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL - ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS To consider any applications which need to be determined as a matter of urgency.

6. DEVELOPMENT BY SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL To consider the attached schedule of applications for consent to develop, which are to be determined by this Council. (Pages 31 - 34)

7. CONSULTATIONS FROM DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL To consider the attached schedule detailing an application which is to be determined by Durham County Council. The view and observations of this Council have been requested. (Pages 35 - 46)

Members are reminded that the applications to be considered under Items 4,5,6 and 7 together with the plans submitted and all representations on the applications are available for reference in the relevant files in the Council Chamber, 30 minutes before the meeting or before that in the Development Control Section. 8. COUNTY DECISIONS A schedule of applications, which have been determined by Durham County Council is attached for information. (Pages 47 - 48)

9. DELEGATED DECISIONS A schedule of applications, which have been determined by Officers by virtue of their delegated powers, is attached for information (Pages 49 - 66)

10. APPEALS A schedule of appeals outstanding up to 3 rd September 2008 is attached for information. (Pages 67 - 68)

EXEMPT INFORMATION The following item is not for publication by virtue of Paragraphs of Schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972. As such it is envisaged that an appropriate resolution will be passed at the meeting to exclude the press and public.

11. ALLEGED BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL To consider the attached schedule of alleged breaches of planning control and action taken. (Pages 69 - 70)

12. ANY OTHER ITEMS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN DECIDES ARE URGENT Members are respectfully requested to give the Chief Executive Officer notice of items they would wish to raise under the heading not later than 12 noon on the day preceding the meeting, in order that consultation may take place with the Chairman who will determine whether the item will be accepted.

B. Allen Chief Executive Council Offices SPENNYMOOR

Councillor A. Smith (Chairman) Councillor B. Stephens (Vice Chairman) and

All other Members of the Council

ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to exercise the right of inspection in relation to this Agenda and associated papers should contact Liz North 01388 816166 ext 4237 email:[email protected]

Item 2

Page 1 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 2 Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 4 Item 3

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Council Chamber, Council Offices, Friday, Time: 10.00 a.m. Spennymoor 15 August 2008

Present: Councillor B. Stephens (Vice – Chairman in the Chair) and

Councillors W.M. Blenkinsopp, Mrs. D. Bowman, V. Chapman, Mrs. P. Crathorne, V. Crosby, Mrs. L. M.G. Cuthbertson, D. Farry, T.F. Forrest, P. Gittins J.P., Mrs. B. Graham, A. Gray, G.C. Gray, J.E. Higgin, A. Hodgson, T. Hogan, Mrs. S. J. Iveson, Ms. I. Jackson, B. Lamb, Mrs. E. Maddison, B.M. Ord, Mrs. E.M. Paylor, Mrs. C. Potts, T. Ward, W. Waters and Mrs E. M. Wood

Apologies: Councillors Mrs. A.M. Armstrong, B.F. Avery J.P, T. Brimm, D.R. Brown, J. Burton, D. Chaytor, Mrs. K. Conroy, Mrs. J. Gray, B. Haigh, Mrs. S. Haigh, D.M. Hancock, Mrs. I. Hewitson, Mrs. L. Hovvels, G.M.R. Howe, J.G. Huntington, Mrs. H.J. Hutchinson, J.M. Khan, C. Nelson, D.A. Newell, J. Robinson J.P, A. Smith, K. Thompson and A. Warburton

DC.32/08 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The following declarations of interest were received :-

Councillor B. Stephens - Personal and prejudicial – Item 5 – Consultations from Durham County Council – Member of Durham County Council Councillor B.M. Ord - Personal and prejudicial – Item 5 – Consultations from Durham County Council – Member of Durham County Council Councillor Mrs. S.J. - Personal and prejudicial – Item 5 – Iveson Consultations from Durham County Council – Member of Durham County Council Councillor P. Gittins - Personal and prejudicial – Item 5 – Consultations from Durham County Council – Member of Durham County Council Councillor D. Farry - Personal and prejudicial – Item 5 – Consultations from Durham County Council – Member of Durham County Council Councillor Mrs. B. - Personal and prejudicial – Item 5 – Graham Consultations from Durham County Council – Member of Durham County Council Councillor E.M. Paylor - Personal and prejudicial – Item 5 – Consultations from Durham County Council – Member of Durham County Council

1 Page 5 Councillor Mrs. D. - Personal and prejudicial – Item 5 – Bowman Consultations from Durham County Council – Member of Durham County Council Councillor Mrs. C. Potts - Personal and prejudicial – Item 5 – Consultations from Durham County Council – Member of Durham County Council

DC.33/08 MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 th July, 2008 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DC.34/08 CONSULTATIONS FROM DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

NB: In accordance with Section 81 of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Members Code of Conduct, Councillors B.M. Ord, B. Stephens, Mrs. S.J. Iveson, P.Gittins, J.P ., D. Farry, Mrs. B.Graham, Mrs. E.M. Paylor, Mrs. D. Bowman and Mrs. C. Potts declared personal and prejudicial interest in this item as Members of Durham County Council and left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon.

COUNCILLOR A GRAY IN THE CHAIR

Consideration was given to a schedule of applications which were to be considered by Durham County Council and upon which the Council had been invited to comment. (For copy see file of Minutes).

RESOLVED : That the report be received and the recommendations contained therein adopted.

THOSE COUNCILLORS WHO HAD DECLARED AN INTEREST THEN RETURNED TO THE MEETING .. COUNCILLOR B STEPHENS RESUMED THE CHAIR

DC.35/08 DELEGATED DECISIONS Consideration was given to a schedule detailing applications which had been determined by officers by virtue of their delegated powers. (For copy see file of Minutes).

RESOLVED : That the schedule be received.

DC.36/08 APPEALS Consideration was given to a schedule of appeals outstanding up to 6 th August, 2008. (For copy see file of Minutes).

RESOLVED : That the schedule be received.

2 Page 6 DC.37/08 RECENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Neighbourhood Services in respect of recent planning appeal decisions. (For copy see file of Minutes).

Members noted that the appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a boundary wall at 2a High Green, Newton Aycliffe had been dismissed.

The appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of two storey side extension – 11, Bridge House Estate, Ferryhill had been upheld.

With regard to the appeal regarding refusal of planning permission for a forward ground floor level extension and first floor extension over garage at 29, Lisle Road, Newton Aycliffe, Members noted that the appeal had been dismissed.

An appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a single dwellinghouse at the Larches, Thorpe Larches, Sedgefield had also been dismissed.

RESOLVED : That the information be received.

EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED: That in accordance with Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Act.

DC.38/08 ALLEGED BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL Consideration was given to a schedule detailing alleged breaches of planning control and action taken. (For copy see file of Minutes).

RESOLVED : That the schedule be received.

DC.39/08 UNAUTHORISED SITING OF STEEL CONTAINER NEW CONSERVATORY ROOF AND WOODEN ROOF FOX AND HOUNDS KIRK MERRINGTON Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Neighbourhood Services (for copy see file of Minutes) regarding the above breach of planning control.

3 Page 7 RESOLVED : That the report be received and the recommendations contained therein adopted.

DC.40/08 UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENT AT FORMER COAL STOCKING SITE WESTERTON The Committee considered a report of the Director of Neighbourhood Services (for copy see file of Minutes) relating to the above breach of planning control.

Members noted that the owner had intended submitting an application to regularise matters.

RESOLVED : That the report be received and the recommendations contained therein adopted.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION Any person wishing to exercise the right of inspection, etc., in relation to these Minutes and associated papers should contact Liz North 01388 816166 ext 4237 email:[email protected]

4 Page 8 Item 4

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

1. 7/2008/0330/DM APPLICATION DATE: 24 July 2008

PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF EXISTING STABLE TO FORM 3 NO. DWELLINGS INCLUDING GARAGE FACILITIES AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS

LOCATION: WEST CLOSE COTTAGES CHILTON CO DURHAM

APPLICATION TYPE: Change of Use

APPLICANT: Mr S Taylor Land adjacent to , 3 West Close Cottages, Chilton, Ferryhill, Durham, DL17 0PQ

CONSULTATIONS

1. Cllr. C. Potts 2. Cllr. T.F. Forrest 3. Cllr. B.F. Avery 4. DCC (TRAFFIC) 5. NORTHUMBRIAN WATER 6. CHILTON P.C. 7. BUILDING CONTROL 8. ENGINEERS 10. L.PLANS 11. DESIGN 12. Countryside Team

NEIGHBOUR/INDUSTRIAL

West Close Cottages:1,2,3

BOROUGH PLANNING POLICIES

D3 Design for Access ______

This application would normally constitute a delegated matter under the approved scheme of delegation. It is however being presented to Development Control Committee at the request of a local Councillor.

PROPOSAL

Planning permission is being sought for the conversion of existing stables at West Close Cottages, Chilton to form 3no. dwellings, including new garage facilities and access onto the A167 highway.

Page 9

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

Existing access serving 1-3 West Close Cottages

Proposed access serving application site

This application is the latest in a series of applications for the site, for the conversion of this former L-shaped stable building (presently used for storage purposes) into residential use. The application site falls outside of any recognised settlement framework and lies in the open countryside, in close proximity to a terrace of 3no. dwellings (known as West Close Cottages). The site is accessed to the east from the A167 highway (a declassified former trunk road) to which the national maximum speed limit still applies, and enclosed on all sides by land in agricultural use. The southern extent of Ferryhill lies some 850metres to the north of the site, with Chilton some 1100metres to the south.

As part of this development, vehicular access to the site will be achieved to the south of the site, away from the existing access to the adjacent West Close Cottages.

The proposal would involve converting the existing single storey stable block into 2no. 2-bed bungalows and 1no. 3-bed, 2-storey dwelling by increasing the roof height of the existing stable structure, whilst retaining the existing L-shaped footprint. 2no. garages would also be erected to the rear (west) of the plot (new build), with a third garage space to be built into the existing structure.

Page 10

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

Plate 1: Existing structure (Eastern elevation)

Plate 2: Existing structure (Northern Elevation)

Page 11

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

Plate 3: Existing structure (Southern elevation)

Plate 4: Existing structure (Southern elevation)

Page 12

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

Plate 5: Existing structure (Western elevation)

As part of this application, the applicant has submitted additional information comprising a traffic survey statement (which concludes that proposals would generate negligible levels of traffic, resulting in no material traffic impact on the local highway network and, thereby supports the redevelopment of this site), a biodiversity/bat report (identifying a low risk to bats), and a structural survey (loosely confirming a need to refurbish walls, with the roof system needing to be assessed if the scheme is developed further).

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

External Consultation Responses:

• Chilton Parish Council have raised no objections to this proposal,

• The Durham County Highways Engineer has objected to this proposal on the grounds that the proposal cannot achieve the required 2.4 x 215m junction visibility splay onto the A167, and that it is therefore unsafe on highway safety grounds (see later considerations) ,

• NWL have raised no objections to this proposal.

Internal Consultation Responses:

Page 13

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

• The Sedgefield Borough Environmental Health team have identified that a survey of all asbestos based materials will need to be carried out on site should approval be granted,

• The Sedgefield Borough Highways Engineer has advised that the Highways Authority will require maximum visibility splays to be achieved owing to the high speeds attained on this section of the carriageway,

• The Sedgefield Borough Countryside Officer is content with the findings of the submitted bat survey, concluding a low risk of roosting bats, although does not agree with the conclusion that roosting opportunities built into the fabric of the new buildings are not required. Should approval be granted, it is recommended that bat boxes or suitable bat bricks are incorporated into the fabric of the building to allow for roosting bats, thereby adding to the biodiversity value of the development. It is also recommended that any required vegetation clearance or dismantling of any structure utilised as a nesting site for swallows not be carried out during the bird-breeding season, with the submitted report stating that swallows were nesting in some of the rooms. Finally, it is recommended that swallow nesting boxes be erected in suitable locations around the new buildings should approval be granted,

• The Sedgefield Borough Conservation and Design Officer has not commented on this application,

• The Sedgefield Borough Forward Plans Team object to this proposal, considering the stable building to lack sufficient historic and architectural merit which would otherwise outweigh the normal presumption against new residential development within the open countryside, outside of any established settlement. Furthermore, this site is not considered to be in a sustainable location for new housing, with such development considered contrary to national planning guidance and development plan policies which seek to restrict new dwellings in the open countryside.

As part of the consultation and publicity exercise for this application, a site notice was displayed adjacent to the application site and all neighbouring properties were notified. No objections were received in response to this exercise, with 2no. letters of support received from the occupants of the adjacent ‘West Close Cottages’. A further 4no. letters of support were provided by the applicant (again from occupiers at ‘West Close Cottages’) with the submitted application.

No other comments have been received in response to this consultation and publicity exercise.

PLANNING HISTORY

Formal planning applications:

• 7/1989/0350/DM (Erection of agricultural building and alterations to vehicular access) – REFUSED ON HIGHWAY SAFETY GROUNDS • 7/1995/0500/DM (Conversion of barn to provide 1 bungalow) – REFUSED ON HIGHWAY SAFETY GROUNDS AND ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ALTERATIONS WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THETRADITIONAL CHARACTER OF EXSITING BUILDING • 7/2006/0549/DM (Erection of stable block) - WITHDRAWN

Page 14

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

Informal enquiries:

• P/2005/0508/DM (Conversion of buildings) Concerns raised over condition of buildings to be converted. Buildings were considered to be in a dilapidated condition and unsuitable for conversion, also being unworthy of retention. Development would also result in an unsustainable and unacceptable form of sporadic development contrary to local plan policies. Meanwhile, regarding site access issues, the applicant was advised to contact County Engineers.

• P/2008/0208/DM (Conversion of stables into 3no. dwellings) Development strongly resisted. Strong highways objections over proposed access from A167. Despite some provision for the reuse of suitably located and constructed buildings in the open countryside where this would meet sustainable development objectives, officers remained unconvinced that these buildings were worthy of retention, with works likely to involve substantial rebuilding or modification to provide acceptable living conditions.

Planning appeals: • T/APP/M1330/A/96/267926/P8 (Appeal by Mr and Mrs Walker in relation to planning refusal 7/1995/0500/DM) - APPEAL DISMISSED ON HIGHWAY SAFETY GROUNDS

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

The main planning considerations in this case are:

• Whether the normal presumption against new residential development within the open countryside is outweighed by the desirability of retaining the buildings in the interests of preserving the rural heritage of the area; and • Whether the proposal is capable of being served by a safe means of access.

Conversion principles.

In the absence of a specific Local Plan Policy relating to the conversion of former farm buildings the application needs to be considered in accordance with the requirements of National Planning Policy PPS7 (Sustainable development in rural areas) which provides guidance on the re-use of buildings in the countryside.

PPS7 explains how it is Government’s policy to support the re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside where this would meet sustainable development objectives. Re-use for economic development purposes will usually be preferable, but residential conversions may be more appropriate in some locations, and for some types of building. Scope is also given for the retention of buildings in less sustainable locations if the buildings are considered worthy of retention due to their architectural merit. PPS7 stipulates that in assessing proposals for the conversion and re-use of buildings in the countryside for economic, residential and any other purposes, that following criterion needs to be taken into account:

• The potential impact on the countryside and landscapes and wildlife; • Specific local economic and social needs and opportunities; • Settlement patterns and accessibility to service centres, markets and housing; • The suitability of different types of buildings,Page 15 and of different scales, for re-use;

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

• The need to preserve, or the desirability of preserving, buildings of historic or architectural importance or interest, or which otherwise contribute to local character.

Furthermore, PPS7 advises that l ocal planning authorities should be particularly supportive of the re-use of existing buildings that are adjacent or closely related to country towns and villages, for economic or community uses, or to provide housing in accordance with the policies in PPG3, and subject to the policies in paragraph 7 of this PPS in relation to the retention of local services.

In considering the relative merits of the proposal the principle issues which need to addressed on this occasion are:

• Whether the buildings are of such historic or architectural merit which would outweigh the normal presumption against new residential development within the open countryside, • Whether the extent of the works will maintain the intrinsic characteristic of building which make it worthy of retention; and • Whether the site is a sustainable location for new residential development.

In applying for these works, the applicant argues the building to be of local historic value to the residents of both Ferryhill and Chilton as they were formerly used to accommodate pit ponies from the nearby Colliery. This would appear to be the only historic justification for retaining the building and is not considered to be sufficient on its own to justify the conversion of the building to residential use. Furthermore, the building itself has little architectural merit or outstanding features worthy of retention. The photographs attached to the report show the existing building to be a standard farm building, constructed of a mixture of brick, stone, and block work, with a corrugated iron/asbestos roof. It is typical of many farm buildings found elsewhere across the borough and as such is not a scarce resource or unique agricultural building, which is worthy of retention in the interests of preserving the rural heritage of the area. The historic and architectural merits of the buildings are therefore considered to be insufficient to outweigh the normal presumption against new residential development within the open countryside

In addition, whilst the true extent of conversion works required is unclear, the submitted plans clearly show a need for considerable works to the original structure which in turn diminish its original integrity and retention value. It is noted that works will involve an increase in the proposed roof height to part of the structure to provide first floor living space, with the remainder of the existing roof structure (a combination of asbestos cement sheeting and plastic corrugated sheeting) also likely to be replaced. The accompanying structural survey fails to provide sufficient information as to the extent of the works, identifying a need to ‘refurbish walls’, with again considerable concern raised over the ambiguity of the works proposed, which will inevitably be to such an extent that much of the ‘character’ and ‘value’ of the original building will be lost.

It is considered that the extent of works that will be required to convert the buildings to residential use will be so significant that the original integrity of this structure will be lost and questions the very need to preserve this structure on the grounds of its architectural or historic importance.

It is also argued that should permission be granted for such works, this will result in an unsustainable form of development (contrary to the applicant’s claims) outside of any identified settlement framework for Sedgefield Borough, thereby constituting unsustainable development Page 16

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______in the open countryside. The remoteness of this site from public transport, shops, services and other facilities would discourage future occupiers from using public transport, with this development being largely car dependant, therefore failing to meet the requirements of the Regional Spatial Strategy and PPS7.

Highway safety:

The Highway Authority has for a long time objected to the principle of further residential use on this site with regard to the proposed access onto the adjacent A167 highway. Highways engineers have always maintained that this site is unsuitable for further residential development on the grounds that the junction site visibility splays with A167 are insufficient, taking into account the speed of vehicles and the vertical alignment of the carriageway.

In 1996 a planning appeal against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse consent for the conversion of this barn structure to 1no. residential bungalow was dismissed by the planning inspector (LPA planning ref: 7/1995/0500/DM, Appeal ref: APP.M1330/A/96/267926) .

In arriving at this decision (a copy of which is appended to this report) , the planning inspector agreed that conversion of this structure to just 1no. dwelling would result in an increase in traffic using this site, and agreed with the County Councils Highways advice that this would result in a significant increase in the risk of accidents occurring with vehicles turning into the site. With no speed restriction on this section of road (60mph national limit – a factor which has not changed ), the Councils main concern was that vehicles turning into the site off the A167 would impede following vehicles, particularly those travelling southbound from Ferrryhill. Although amendments to the white lines on this section of carriageway was considered, it was concluded that this would make little material difference, with the proposal for 1no. dwelling considered detrimental to highway safety.

It should be noted that the earlier application related to the northern access to the site (presently used by the occupants of West Close Cottages), with the current application intending to make use of an access point some 40metres to the south. It should also be noted that the current proposal is now for 3no. dwellings, and clearly represents a significant increase in the future use of this site and highway junction, resulting in an increase in road traffic accident risk.

Prior to the applicant submitting the current application, the Highways Authority provided informal advice explaining that the newly proposed access was in fact worse than that relating to the aforementioned 1995 refusal and subsequent appeal due to the dip in the road to the north of the site and the inability to achieve the necessary 2.4 x 215m junction site visibility.

A speed survey was subsequently carried out by the Highways Authority on this section of road between Tuesday 30 th October 2007 and Tuesday 6 th November 2007, recording critical southbound 85 th percentile speeds at 55.4mph, with Saturday and Sunday recordings at 59.2mph and 59.5mph respectively. This challenged earlier single day findings provided by the applicants highway consultants ‘Trafficsense’ who had previously recorded an extremely low value of 39mph (bearing in mind this is a national limit road). In response to the Highways Authority’s findings, a further single day survey was undertaken by ‘Trafficsense’ on Monday November 19 th 2007, for which a 49.2mph southbound wet weather speed was recorded.

Page 17

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

As part of this current submission, the applicant has provided a Highways Statement (produced by ‘Denis Wilson Partnership’, September 2007). The statement concludes that the proposals would generate a negligible level of traffic, whilst resulting in no material traffic impact on the local highway network, whilst also demonstrating the proposed site access junction to easily meet the current design standards on visibility. However, as confirmed by the Highway Authority, much of the applicant’s case centres on the application of ‘Manual for Streets’ (MfS) standards, despite earlier reminders from the Highways Authority that this is not a MfS related site.

The Manual for Streets replaces Design Bulletin 32 and presents guidance on how to design better quality streets within the existing policy, technical and legal framework. The key recommendation of the Manual is that increased consideration should be given to the ‘place’ function of streets. This function is essentially what distinguishes a street from a road, where the main purpose is to facilitate movement. The MfS document clearly states how MfS focuses on lightly trafficked, residential streets, and that for the purposes of MfS, a street is defined as a ‘highway that has important public realm functions beyond the movement of traffic’ . The A167 highway cannot be considered as an MfS highway as its primary function is to accommodate the movement of traffic.

In view of the foregoing, the application of MfS standards to the A167 highway is not applicable with the Highway Authority’s minimum expected standards set out within the ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) being applied. The proposed junction visibility for the application site falls significantly short of these minimum requirements, with the proposed access therefore considered unacceptable on highway safety grounds.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion it is considered that the stable building to be converted lacks sufficient historic and architectural merit which would outweigh the normal presumption against new residential development within the open countryside. The extent of conversion works required would likely be so significant that the original character and integrity of this structure itself will be lost, challenging the applicants fundamental arguments that this structure is worthy of retention in the first place.

Should approval be granted, this will result in an unacceptable form of development which will encourage dependency for private car usage owing to the remoteness of the site from public transport links, shops, services, employment and other services.

Finally, considerable highway concerns have been raised over the safety of the proposed access junction with the A167, which would fall significantly short of the minimum site visibility splay as required by the Highways Authority. Despite the assertions of the applicant the proposed access arrangements fail to address the junction deficiencies highlighted by the Highway Authority throughout the planning history of this site and development of the site would result in an increased risk of road traffic accidents. The applicant has in fact erroneously employed the Mfs standards to justify the access arrangements. MfS was never intended to apply to roads where the primary function is to accommodate the movement of traffic. Its scope is clearly limited to residential and other lightly trafficked streets and was primarily introduced to transform the quality of residential streets and move away from places that are dominated by motor vehicles. The concerns of the County Engineer should therefore not be

Page 18

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______dismissed lightly. To do so could potentially result in the Council being found liable in the event of a road traffic accident.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

It is considered that in general terms, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in dealing with the above application.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following Reasons:

1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the building in question lacks sufficient historic and architectural merit that would outweigh the normal presumption against new residential development within the open countryside, outside any established settlement. In the absence of any overriding agricultural or forestry need, the proposal constitutes an unacceptable and unsustainable form of development remote from adequate services, employment, education and public transport. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to the provisions of PPS7 (Sustainable development in rural areas).

2. The proposed vehicular access to the site is substandard in that it fails to provide an adequate visibility splay at its junction with the A167. Such a substandard junction layout would be likely to result in manoeuvres that would be detrimental to highway safety, contrary to Policy D3 (Design for Access) of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan, and PPG13 (Transport).

Page 19

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

Page 20

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

Page 21

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

Page 22

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

2. 7/2008/0368/DM APPLICATION DATE: 19 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF 2 NO. DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS

LOCATION: LAND OPPOSITE 1-5 GREENFIELD STREET BYERS GREEN CO DURHAM

APPLICATION TYPE: Outline Application

APPLICANT: Mrs Susan Reynolds 28 High Street , Byers Green , Spennymoor, Co Durham

CONSULTATIONS

1. SPENNYMOOR TC 2. Cllr. W. Waters 3. Cllr. K Thompson 4. Cllr. Colin Nelson 5. DCC (TRAFFIC) 6. BUILDING CONTROL 7. ENGINEERS 8. BR TELECOM 9. ENV. HEALTH 10. VALUER 11. L.PLANS 12. LANDSCAPE ARCH 13. NORTHUMBRIAN WATER

NEIGHBOUR/INDUSTRIAL

High Street:22,24,26,59,61,77,79,81,78,69,71,86,,59 Thomas Wright House Greenfield Street:5,4,3,2,1 Hill View:6,7,8,9,10

BOROUGH PLANNING POLICIES

H8 Residential Frameworks for Larger Villages D3 Design for Access D5 Layout of New Housing Development D3 Design for Access H17 Backland and Infill Housing

______

Page 23

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

This application would normally constitute a delegated matter under the approved scheme of delegation. It is however being presented to Development Control Committee at the request of a local Councillor.

BACKGROUND

In 2004 Development Control Committee granted outline planning permission for residential development comprising 4no. terraced dwellings on land at Greenfield Street, Byers Green (planning ref: 7/2004/0506/DM) . The decision to approve the application was contrary to the officer recommendation which, based on the advice of the County Engineer, recommended refusal on the grounds that the proposed vehicular access to the site was substandard in that it failed to provide adequate visibility and was therefore detrimental to highway safety.

This approval expired following a 3-year period in which no reserved matters for the development were approved. A subsequent, detailed application for the development of 4no. terraced dwellings was subsequently refused in May 2008 under the officer scheme of delegation (planning ref. 7/2008/0190/DM) . The reasons for refusal were once again based on the advice of the County Engineer who maintained that the vehicular access to the site was still substandard and therefore detrimental to highway safety.

PROPOSAL

Outline planning permission is now being sought for two detached dwellings with all matters reserved for subsequent approval with the exception of details of the means of access to the site and site layout. The proposed means of access and site layout is shown below.

Page 24

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

Access to this site would be taken from an existing unmade track and junction with High Street to the east (between numbers 71 and 75 High Street), which according to the applicant would be realigned and constructed to an adoptable standard.

The submitted application indicates that 2no. two-storey detached dwellings would be developed on this site and this is a noticeable deviation from previous applications and enquiries for this site which concerned a terrace of 4no. dwellings to be accommodated in the centre of the site, as a continuation of no’s 6-10 Greenfield Street which lie to the immediate north-west.

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

External Consultation Responses:

• Spennymoor Town Council have raised no objections to the proposal,

• The Durham County Highways Engineer has once again objected to this application on the following grounds:

“The main apparent difference on this latest site plan is the reduction from 4no. dwellings down to 2no. dwellings. Despite this reduction in dwelling numbers, an adopted road/footway infrastructure would still be required, generallyPage 25based on what the applicant has shown in the

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

latest site plan. However acceptable junction sight visibility onto High Street still cannot be achieved and as such, the suggested road/footway infrastructure cannot be considered acceptable for adoption by the highway authority.

The proposals back in 2004 achieved nothing near to the junction site visibility splays of 2.4 x 70 metres required at the time, and despite the arrival of ‘Manual for Streets’ that could allow a further relaxation to 2.4 x 43 metres, the proposed junction arrangement still falls well short of achieving this.

Whilst I am mindful of the previous planning permission granted by Sedgefield Borough Council, I must maintain my previous highways objection to these proposals on the basis of a sub-standard junction site visibility at the access onto High Street.”

• Following concerns raised by a neighbour over water supply in the area, NWL were consulted on this application and have raised no objections to the proposed development,

• BT were notified of this application with regard to the presence of a telecommunications pole in close proximity to the new access, and have made no comment on this application.

Internal Consultation Responses:

• The Sedgefield Borough Environmental Health Team have raised no objections to this proposal,

• The Sedgefield Borough Countryside Officer has recommended that any vegetation clearance of this site be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) unless a checking survey is first undertaken by a suitably qualified person confirming no birds are present prior to the start of any works. Furthermore, it is recommended that wherever possible, biodiversity interest be built into the design of the houses, as well as the associated landscaping/gardens.

• The Sedgefield Borough Forward Plans team consider that the development accords with the requirements of Local Plan Policy H8 (Residential frameworks for larger villages) , with the principle of housing development on this site acceptable. However, this is subject to the provision of a satisfactory means of access, whilst adhering to privacy and amenity standards as set out in SPG3 (The layout of new housing) .

• The Sedgefield Borough Valuations team have raised no objections to the proposal,

• The Sedgefield Borough Landscape Architect considers this application an improvement in design terms from previous applications, welcoming a reduction in density and additional land for landscaping. However, concerns are raised over the lack of consideration given to landscaping schemes or discussion in the submitted D&A statement. A landscape master plan is required and should be agreed as acceptable prior to granting any permission, (As this application seeks only outline consent for access and layout, landscaping details are not considered relevant at this time, being subject to further scrutiny when all outstanding reserved matters are applied for.)

Page 26

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

• The Sedgefield Borough Highways Engineer has raised no objections to the proposal subject to site access visibility being agreed with the Highways Authority prior to determining this application,

As part of the consultation and publicity exercise for this application, a site notice was displayed adjacent to the application site and all neighbouring properties were notified. 2no. letters of objection was received in response to this exercise from nearby residents, with a summary of the main points raised as follows:

Tree felling: • What assurances would we have that the removal of roots on site as part of development would not result in subsidence to our homes? • Since the felling of the black poplars which caused structural problems for dwellings in the vicinity, this area has been used as a playground for children posing a risk with the site unsafe from un-removed felled trees,

Drainage: • My main drain with inspection cover runs through the proposed site, NWL were consulted on this application and have raised no objections,

Highways access: • It is our understanding that the lane leading up to our home is not owned by either SBC or the applicant, but rather owned by the occupants of numbers 1-5 Greenfield Street. How can permission be granted to turn this into an adoptable road? • The proposed access route is an unmade, unadopted road which also serves as a public footpath well used by people in the locality for leisure (rambling, dog walking etc), providing little space for vehicle access owing to the siting of a telegraph post serving many properties at the side, BT were consulted on this application with regard to the aforementioned telegraph pole but have made no comment on this application, • We currently have enormous problems with non-residents parking in the lane, with no parking facilities. This causes access problems which will be made worse if development were allowed. What about emergency vehicles? And with 24h access needed by ourselves, how will building contractors gain access without obstructing this lane? • In May 2008 a similar application on this site was refused planning permission on the grounds of vehicle access. The problems presented at the time remain unchanged now.

No other comments have been received as a result of the consultation and publicity exercise.

PLANNING HISTORY

Formal planning applications:

• 7/1986/0296/DM (Erection of 2no. dwelling houses) - REFUSED

• 7/2004/0506/DM (Residential development comprising 4 no. Terraced houses - Outline application) - APPROVED AT PLANNING COMMITTEE AGAINST OFFICERS RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 27

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

• 7/2007/0614/DM (Reserved matters application for the approval of design, external appearance and landscaping of 4 no. Dwellings) - WITHDRAWN

• 7/2008/0190/DM (Residential development comprising of 4 terraced houses - Outline application) - REFUSED

Informal enquiries:

• P/2003/0634/DM (Residential development) - Limited development potential. Concerns over access to site and loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

• P/2004/0345/DM (Residential development) – Highways concerns remain. Application discouraged as site visibility is critical to success of any application,

• P/2007/0588/DM (Residential development) – Concerns over orientation of dwellings, and once again site access/visibility,

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

The main planning considerations in this case are:

• Whether the proposal accords with the locational requirements of the Borough Local Plan, and • Highway safety,

Locational requirements:

Adopted Policy H8 (Residential frameworks for larger villages) of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan includes Byers Green in its list of settlements within which new housing development will normally be approved, subject to there being no conflict with environmental, open space or design policies. The provision of further residential development within the defined settlement boundary of Byers Green is therefore considered acceptable in locational terms.

Highway safety:

The application site is enclosed on three sides by existing housing and lies behind High Street and therefore constitutes a back land site under Policy H17 (Backland and infill housing development) of the Borough Local Plan. Policy H17 states:

Housing development on backland and infill sites should normally be consistent with the following principles:

(A) A satisfactory means of access and adequate parking provision can be provided in accordance with policy D3; (B) Satisfactory amenity and privacy for both the new dwelling and existing adjacent dwellings can be achieved in accordance with policy D5; and (C) The development is in keeping with the scale and form of adjacent dwellings and the local setting of the site.

Page 28

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______

In respect of criterion ( B) and ( C) it is considered that the application site is capable of being developed for two detached dwellings whilst maintaining sufficient privacy and amenity, and although the application is only in outline form the scale of the development would be sympathetic to the surrounding street scene and local setting of the site.

Whilst it is considered that criterion ( B) and ( C) can be satisfied it is considered that despite the number of dwellings being reduced to 2no. the proposal fails to satisfy criterion ( A) which seeks to ensure that a satisfactory means of access and parking can be achieved. As previously explained access to this site is to be taken directly from an existing, unmade track from High Street to the east (between numbers 71 and 75 High Street). Existing access arrangements to the site, and to the existing residential properties in Greenfield Street are however, quite poor. Whilst improvement of this access road as part of a good quality development would be welcomed, it is evident that the junction with High Street would be substandard, and has little or no prospect of improvement to meet the Highway Authority’s required minimum standards of 2.4m x 43m (as set out within DfT ‘Manual for Streets’).

Officers and the Highways Authority have maintained a consistent approach to the development of this site at all times both during the informal enquiry stage and upon receipt of formal applications. Earlier outline permission was only granted against officer’s recommendations at planning committee despite strong highways objections to this proposal. Whilst it is recognised that at the time stricter minimum junction visibility requirements applied the proposed junction visibility still falls well short of the required minimum, and is therefore deemed to be unsafe by the County Council as the Highways Authority.

Users of such a substandard junction would invariably position their cars in such a way as to encroach onto the main road in order to achieve adequate visibility of vehicles approaching from the south-east. High Street is a busy classified road, and is a designated bus route. Such vehicular manoeuvres would be prejudicial to highway safety. Accordingly, the Highway Authority considers the junction site visibility onto the existing adopted public highway to be inadequate and formally object to the proposal.

Although the development of this site would bring welcome environmental and visual improvements to the surrounding area, involving the redevelopment of a presently vacant, poorly managed area of undeveloped open space, the development of this site should not override highway safety concerns expressed by both this planning department, the highways authority and neighbouring residents who have raised concerns to this application throughout the long planning history of this site. Alternative powers are available to Local Authorities where it is considered that the appearance of a site is detrimental to the amenity of that area.

CONCLUSION

In locational terms, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to residential development within the settlement framework of Byers Green (as set out in adopted Local Plan policy H8). Furthermore, subject to the approval of outstanding reserved matters, the site could accommodate new residential development of an acceptable scale and design, sympathetic to its surroundings, whilst maintaining acceptable privacy and amenity standards for future occupiers and neighbouring residents.

However, the proposed access arrangements do not address the junction deficiencies highlighted by the Highway Authority throughout the planning history of this site. The visibility Page 29

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TO BE DETERMINED ______at this junction still falls significantly short of the minimum advocated by the DfT ‘Manual for Streets and that required by the Highways Authority and would result in an increased risk of road traffic accidents resulting directly from the intensified use of this site, brought about by this residential development. Whilst it is recognised that the proposal would bring about environmental improvements, the concerns of the County Engineer should not be dismissed lightly. To do so could potentially result in the Council being found liable in the event of a road traffic accident. It is therefore recommended that the application is refused for the reasons detailed below.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

It is considered that in general terms, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in dealing with the above application.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following Reason:

1. The proposed vehicular access to the site is substandard in that it fails to provide an adequate visibility splay at its junction with High Street in accordance with the DfT ‘Manual for Streets’. Such a substandard junction layout would be likely to result in manoeuvres that would be detrimental to highway safety, contrary to Policies H17 (Backland and Infill Housing Development) and D3 (Design for Access) of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and PPG13 (Transport).

Page 30 Item 6 Page 1 SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT B Y SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL ______

1. 7/2008/0371/DMAPPLICATION DATE: 4 July 2008

PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF 1NO. LARGE SWING

LOCATION: CORNFORTH COMMUNITY PARK LABURNUM ROAD WEST CORNFORTH CO DURHAM

APPLICATION TYPE: Detailed Application

APPLICANT: Mr Ernie Hurrell Cornforth Parish Council, 1 St Cuthberts Way, West Cornforth , Co Durham

CONSULTATIONS

1. CORNFORTH P.C. 2. Cllr. A. Hodgson 3. Cllr. T D Brimm 4. SPORTS COUNC. 5. ENV. HEALTH

NEIGHBOUR/INDUSTRIAL

Cedar Villas:1,2 Ash Terrace:1 Cedar Terrace:1 Raisby Road:1 Hawthorne Terrace:36 Laburnum Road:8,6,16,14,7,5,3,1 Poplar Terrace:35 ______

THE PROPOSAL

Cornforth Parish Council, through the West Cornforth Community Park Project is proposing to develop new play facilities for young people (primarily teenagers) within the West Cornforth Community Park.

Page 31 Page 2 SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT B Y SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL ______

Presently, there is a lack of recreational provision for young people and teenagers in the Cornforth area, with a high population of young people in this area and high levels of youth related anti-social behaviour. The new equipment has been planned and designed with the involvement of local young people so that the facility meets their needs. The play facilities have also been designed to be accessible for young people with disabilities and will sit alongside 2no. existing play areas in the close vicinity which are aimed towards younger children and toddlers.

Despite numerous operations being carried out as part of the wider play area development, the works do not require planning consent with the exception of a single piece of play equipment, in the form of a giant swing, which owing to its height requires planning permission. The swing would stand 5290mm high and its design is shown below.

Page 32 Page 3 SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT B Y SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL ______

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY

As part of the consultation and publicity exercise for this application, a site notice was displayed adjacent to the application site and all neighbouring properties were notified. No objections were received in response to this exercise. Furthermore:

• The Sedgefield Borough Environmental Health Team have raised no objections to this proposal, • Sport England have raised no objections to this proposal,

No other comments have been received in response to this consultation and publicity exercise.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

This proposal, which involves a single piece of play equipment, has been considered in accordance with the requirements of Local Plan Policies L5 (Safeguarding areas of open space) , H18 (Acceptable uses within housing areas) and D1 (General principles for the layout and design of new developments) . Here the principal issues are:

• How would the proposal affect the suitability of the application site for leisure activities; • Would the environmental qualities of the site be prejudiced, and • Would the proposal be likely to significantly harm the living conditions for nearby residents?

The application site presently forms part of a much larger community park area located within the heart of the west Cornforth residential area, falling in close proximity to other play equipment, geared towards different age group. The park area is commonly used by local residents for a variety of informal recreational activities; with it considered that the provision of an additional piece of play equipment in association with the larger scheme will enhance the range of activities available to the local community in accordance with policy L5 of the Local Plan.

Meanwhile policy H18 of the Local Plan prescribes a range of uses that will normally be considered acceptable in housing areas, subject to being of appropriate scale and character, not causing significant harm to the local residential amenities, and complying with other plan policies. Open space and leisure/recreational uses are considered acceptable uses within residential areas, with the proposed equipment to be sited over 50metres away from the nearest residential properties to the east and west of the site. This equipment will be installed in an existing recreational area and not result in any detrimental impact upon the residential amenity or privacy of neighboring properties.

Finally, this proposal is considered to comply, with the requirements of Policy D1 with the proposed installation being of an acceptable scale and design which is sympathetic to other recreational uses and play equipment in the surrounding park area, without detrimentally impacting nearby dwellings.

A community consultation exercise carried out by the Council did not reveal any local objections to this proposal. In conclusion, this application is considered to satisfy the requirements of local plan policies D1, H18 and L5 and is hereby recommended for planning approval.

Page 33 Page 4 SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT B Y SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL ______

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

It is considered that in general terms, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in dealing with the above application.

SECTION 17 OF THE CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998

Officers have considered, with due regard, the likely effect of the proposal on the need to reduce crime and disorder as part of the determination of this application, in accordance with section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In reaching a recommendation to grant planning permission, officers consider that the proposal will not undermine crime prevention or the promotion of community safety.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development hereby approved shall be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

INFORMATIVE: REASON FOR GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION: In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development is acceptable in scale and character to the housing area and would not significantly harm the living conditions for nearby residents.

INFORMATIVE: LOCAL PLAN POLICIES RELEVANT TO THIS DECISION: The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the key policies in the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan as set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance:H18 Acceptable Uses within Housing Areas

Page 34 Item 7

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY MATTERS

______1. 7/2008/0394/CM

APPLICATION DATE: 10 July 2008

PROPOSAL: DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL GARDEN INCLUDING GLASSHOUSE, BIRD HIDE, BOARD WALK AND POND

LOCATION: OX CLOSE PRIMARY SCHOOL SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr Charles Mercer Durham County Council, Estate Division, Corporate Services, Room 1/56 County Hall, Durham

CONSULTATIONS

1. SPENNYMOOR TC 2. Cllr. B.M. Ord 3. Cllr. Liz Maddison 4. Cllr. Elizabeth 5. ENGINEERS 6. ENV. HEALTH 7. LANDSCAPE ARCH 8. Countryside Team 9. Rodger Lowe

______

This application is for development by Durham County Council and will therefore be dealt with by the County Council under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992. The views of the Borough Council have been sought upon the proposal as a consultee.

THE PROPOSAL

Planning permission is being sought for the creation of a new school garden facility comprising the following works, to be created in unused scrubland to the immediate north of Oxclose Nursery School, Spennymoor: • New footpaths, • Planting, • Glasshouse (2.44m x 1.83m), • Pond (15m x 6m x 600mm approx depth), margins planted with native species encouraging the introduction of frogs and toads, to also include a dipping platform (4m x 3m, approx 300mm high), and to be surrounded by as 1.5m wooden palisade fence, • Bird hide (1.8m x 1.8m x 1.8m) to be constructed from wooden posts and willow weave panels. No roof, • Picnic benches, • Mounds (1m high) • Timber planters (500mm high) • Benches, Page 35

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY MATTERS

______• Compost bins, • Weather station, • Bird tables/feeders, • Willow tunnel, • Water butt, • Willow den,

The aim of this newly created landscape garden area is to assist in extending the scope of teaching pupils of the adjacent school in science, ecology, environmental issues, recycling and meteorology, also being used for social activities, passive play and the ‘hidden curriculum’ activities. This area has been designed following consultation between the ‘School Grounds Development Project’, school pupils, staff and parents, with the chosen design developed from a ‘wish list’ expressed by these parties. Material choices have been selected to maintain the ecological sensitivity of the site, with all existing trees, shrub and hedging to be retained, and with appropriate tree protection measures to be implemented during site works (BS5837).

Page 36

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY MATTERS

______Access to the site will be via the south and west, with accessibility throughout the site to remain fully inclusive, and with all materials to be used carefully selected to give a blend of different textures, whilst maintaining an accessible surface for all.

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY

• Spennymoor Town Council have raised no objections to this proposal, • The Sedgefield Borough Landscape Architect has raised no objections to this proposal, • The Sedgefield Borough Arboriculture Officer has not commented on this application, • The Sedgefield Borough Highways Engineer has raised no objections to this proposal, • The Sedgefield Borough Environmental Health team have not commented on this application, • The Sedgefield Borough Countryside Officer recommends a Great Crested Newt survey of the site be undertaken owing to the naturally damp/wet nature of the site, its proximity to a known population of Great Crested Newts, and the good foraging habitat and connecting corridors. The County Council were recently notified of this advice and advised that they are already aware of the situation,

No other comments were received in response to this consultation exercise.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

This application needs to be considered in accordance with the requirements of adopted Local Plan Policies L11 (Development of new or improved leisure and community buildings) and D1 (General principles for the layout and design of new developments) which together seek to encourage improvements to leisure and community facilities throughout the Borough, which will improve the range and quality of facilities available providing there is no resulting harm to the living conditions of nearby residents, is appropriate in scale and location to the character of the surrounding area, and makes provision for parking and access. Such development should adopt a comprehensive approach which takes account of the sites natural and built features and its relationship to adjacent land uses and activities, paying attention to the design of open spaces, landscaping and boundary treatment.

On this occasion, it is noted that this site presently comprises a poorly kept, unmanaged area of undeveloped scrubland, with the proposed school garden works to deliver massive benefits to this site in terms of aesthetics, environmental improvements and improved community facilities, helping restore pride and ownership to this unused area. This garden area will remain enclosed to the north and east, ensuring no adverse impact on nearby properties which overlook the site, with accessibility to and throughout the site inclusive to all.

With no objections raised, this application is considered acceptable, in accordance with the requirements of Local Plan Policies L11 and D1 and should therefore be recommended for planning approval (subject to the submission of and adherence to the mitigation details as outlined within a Great Crested Newt Survey of the site – see countryside comments ).

Page 37

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY MATTERS

______

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

It is considered that in general terms, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in dealing with the above application.

SECTION 17 OF THE CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998

Officers have considered, with due regard, the likely effect of the proposal on the need to reduce crime and disorder as part of the determination of this application, in accordance with section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In reaching a recommendation to grant planning permission, officers consider that the proposal will not undermine crime prevention or the promotion of community safety.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council raise no objections to this proposal, subject to the submission of a Great Crested Newt site survey, and approval of Natural England, and adherence to any mitigation details outline therein.

______

Page 38

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY MATTERS

______2. 7/2008/0397/CM

APPLICATION DATE: 21 July 2008

PROPOSAL: PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF OUTBUILDINGS IN SCHOOL GROUNDS AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MUSIC AND EXPRESSIVE ARTS BLOCK AND FORMATION OF MINIBUS PARKING AREA

LOCATION: THE MEADOWS PRIMARY SCHOOL WHITWORTH LANE SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr George Harris The Meadows Primary School, Whitworth Lane, Spennymoor, Co Durham ,

CONSULTATIONS

1. SPENNYMOOR TC 2. Cllr. B.M. Ord 3. Cllr. Liz Maddison 4. Cllr. Elizabeth M Wood 5. BUILDING CONTROL 6. ENGINEERS 7. ENV. HEALTH 8. Rodger Lowe 9. LANDSCAPE ARCH

______

This application is for development by Durham County Council and will therefore be dealt with by the County Council under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992. The views of the Borough Council have been sought upon this proposal as a consultee.

THE PROPOSAL

Planning permission is being sought for the erection of a new music and expressive arts block and minibus parking area within the grounds of the Meadows Day Special School, Whitworth Lane Spennymoor. Such works will involve the demolition of existing outbuildings within the school grounds (single storey monopitch roof building, single storey duo pitch roof building and double storey duo pitched building) which are found to be structurally unsafe. This new structure will be built in the place of these demolished structures to the immediate North West of the main school building, measuring 13,410mm in length, 5310mm in width and 4800mm in pitched roof height. It is anticipated that this new block will be constructed from reclaimed stone and slate tile (providing sufficient material can be salvaged form the structures to be demolished), with UPVC window frames to match the remainder of the school building (at the applicants request). Doors will be made from timber to allow for easier maintenance.

Page 39

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY MATTERS

______Site of proposed demolition / development:

The Meadows Day Special School is presently attended by children with emotional/behavioural disorders, with this proposed new music block to be used directly for the benefit and education of these children, but will also be open to the community for music and art activities. The main entrance to this structure will be located at the nearest point of the main school building due to the nature of the pupils via an access ramp, with window sizes and window positions carefully selected to maximise light intake, whilst avoiding any ‘goldfish bowl’ effect or disturbance from outside pupils. Accessibility to the site will remain inclusive to all potential users with sufficient parking provision adjacent to the proposed development. Presently minibuses are stored in the 2-storey block to be demolished, and following development will be parked on the footprint of the demolished building, surrounded by a green mesh fence similar to others on this site. These minibuses will access the main carriageway via a separate, existing vehicular access at the northern end of the site, away from the main entrance to the school building. Prior to submitting this application for the attention of Sedgefield Borough Council, extensive consultation has taken place with Durham County Planning Department, the County Estates Officer, Landscape Architect, NWL, Zurich Insurance and Highways Engineers. No objections have been raised to this proposal, with a bat survey of the site undertaken on the advice of the County Ecologist. It is appreciated that works will involve the removal of a yew tree close to the proposed demolition/development site which has no TPO, and although worthy of retention, may affect natural light to the new structure and any foundations. It is therefore agreed that this tree may be removed.

Page 40

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY MATTERS

______Yew tree to be removed:

Structures to be demolished:

Page 41

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY MATTERS

______

Page 42

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY MATTERS

______

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY

• Spennymoor Town Council have raised no objections to this proposal, • The Sedgefield Borough Design officer has commented on the historical value of the buildings to be demolished, citing these to be older than the main school building itself. However, these buildings have been left to fall into disrepair, leaving only one elevation of worthy retention. This officer therefore reluctantly agrees to see the removal of these buildings on the condition that their replacement is sensitively designed, using traditional materials and construction methods. The inclusion of UPVC windows is strongly discouraged, • The Sedgefield Borough Environmental Health Team have raised no objections to this proposal, although have identified the need for a survey of the site with regard to the presence of asbestos-based material, • The Sedgefield Borough Highways Engineer has raised no objections to this proposal, • The Sedgefield Borough Landscape Architect has raised no objections to this proposal, • The Sedgefield Borough Arboriculture Officer notes the lack of consideration which has been given to a number of trees which could be damaged by development (not just the one Yew tree referred to in the submitted application). These trees provide valuable screening from the adjacent road. The Yew tree identified is presently growing in a hostile environment adjacent to the hardstand of the adjacent car park and within close proximity of nearby buildings. This tree is only in a fair condition, with the root system hemmed in. Retention of this tree alongside the proposed building works would only further compromise its future prospects, with this officer of the opinion that excessive consideration not be given to this tree, but more to do with the other trees on site. It is noted that there appears to be no mitigation for the loss of any tree, with a tree replacement scheme welcomed.

No other comments have been received in response to this consultation exercise.

Page 43

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY MATTERS

______

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

In its essence this proposal will provide a valuable community facility and improved educational facility for the pupils of the Meadows Day Special School in accordance with the requirements of adopted Local Plan Policy L11 (Development of new or improved Leisure and Community Buildings) , D1 (General principles for the layout and design of new developments) and D3 (Design for access) , which encourage well designed community facilities such as this where they: • Will not significantly harm the living conditions for nearby residents, • Are appropriate in scale and character to the surrounding area, and • Make adequate provision for car parking, manoeuvring and access, whilst minimising conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles,

In considering the merits of this application, it is noted that this proposal will involve the creation of a new community/educational facility within existing school grounds, set well away from nearby properties (the nearest being over 200metres away to the southwest behind dense landscaping screening and a busy road). This proposed development will be of an acceptable scale and design which will complement and integrate into the main school building, utilising reclaimed materials to maintain the character of its setting. Furthermore, this proposal will not impact parking provision, with more than adequate off-road provision provided elsewhere on site.

As explained, slight concerns have been raised by the Borough Landscape Architect, Design Officer and Environmental Health Team with regard to other trees surrounding the site, the installation of UPVC windows and possible asbestos-based materials. These concerns are reflected in the officer’s recommendation below. In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development meets many of the requirements of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan, being considered to comply with Local Plan Policies L11, D1 and D3. It is not considered that the objections which have been raised carry sufficient weight to justify any recommendation other than one of conditional approval on this occasion.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

It is considered that in general terms, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in dealing with the above application.

SECTION 17 OF THE CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998

Officers have considered, with due regard, the likely effect of the proposal on the need to reduce crime and disorder as part of the determination of this application, in accordance with section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In reaching a recommendation to grant planning permission, officers consider that the proposal will not undermine crime prevention or the promotion of community safety.

Page 44

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY MATTERS

______

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council raises no objections to this proposal subject to:

1. Appropriate tree protection and mitigation schemes being followed as per the findings of a full arboricultural site assessment, 2. The use of more traditional window materials and designs as requested by the Borough Design officer, not UPVC windows, 3. A site survey being undertaken with regard to the possible presence of asbestos-based materials, identifying suitable mitigation measures should asbestos be present,

______

Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 46 Item 8 Page 1 SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - COUNTY DECISIONS ______

1. 7/2008/0343/CM

DATE: 20 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF SHELTER

LOCATION: FISHBURN PRIMARY SCHOOL EAST VIEW FISHBURN CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: 7/2008/0343/CM Environment , County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UQ

DECISION APPROVED DATE ISSUED 11 August 2008

______

Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 48 Item 9

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

1. 7/2008/0102/DM OFFICER:Steven Pilkington

APPLICATION DATE: 1 August 2008

PROPOSAL: TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION

LOCATION: 15 BEECH GROVE TRIMDON GRANGE CO. DURHAM

APPLICANT: Llyod Moscrop-Brown 15 Beech Grove, Trimdon Grange, Co. Durham,

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 22 August 2008

2. 7/2008/0338/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 27 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF NEW CHANGING FACILITIES, ARTIFICIAL CRICKET PRACTICE FACILITY, FENCE TO PERIMETER OF FOOTBALL PITCH, FOOTBALL PITCH FLOODLIGHTING SCHEME INCORPORATING 6NO. 15 METRE HIGH COLUMNS AND NEW FOOTPATH LIGHTING SCHEME INCORPORATING 5NO. 5 METRE HIGH COLUMNS

LOCATION: AYCLIFFE SPORTS AND SOCIAL CLUB MOOR LANE NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr R.W Wood Newton Aycliffe Sports Club, 3 Wiseman Walk, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham, DL5 4JW

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 21 August 2008

3. 7/2008/0345/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 24 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF ILLUMINATED CORPORATE SIGN

LOCATION: THORN LIGHTING BUTHCERS RACE SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr G Hodgson Thorn Lighting Ltd, Merrington Lane Estate, Spennymoor, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 20 August 2008

Page 49

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

4. 7/2008/0346/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 3 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF EXTENSION TO THE SIDE

LOCATION: TUDHOE MOOR NURSERY TUDHOE MOOR SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mrs Griffiths Tudhoe Moor Nursery, Tudhoe Moor, Spennymoor, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 29 August 2008

5. 7/2008/0347/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 4 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

LOCATION: 21 MILBOURNE COURT SEDGEFIELD STOCKTON ON TEES

APPLICANT: Mr J Temperley 21 Milbourne Court, Sedgefield, Stockton on Tees, TS21 2JD

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 21 August 2008

6. 7/2008/0348/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 7 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY GARDEN ROOM EXTENSION TO REAR

LOCATION: 36 ELWICK AVENUE NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM DL5 7HZ

APPLICANT: Mr Alister Maxfield 36 Elwick Avenue, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham, DL5 7HZ

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 13 August 2008

Page 50

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

7. 7/2008/0349/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 3 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION

LOCATION: 24 BRIDGE HOUSE ESTATE FERRYHILL CO DURHAM DL17 8EY

APPLICANT: Mr J Fenny 24 Bridge House Estate, Ferryhill, Durham, County Durham, DL17 8EY

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 28 August 2008

8. 7/2008/0350/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 18 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO REAR

LOCATION: 7 THORNHILL CLOSE SHILDON CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr G Longstaff 7 Thornhill Close, Shildon, Co Durham, DL4 1FL

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 19 August 2008

9. 7/2008/0356/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 18 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO REAR

LOCATION: 17 TEMPLE WAY NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mrs E Jackson 17 Temple Way, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham, DL5 7QH

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 19 August 2008

Page 51

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

10. 7/2008/0357/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 30 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF WAR MEMORIAL FEATURE

LOCATION: LAND AT HUTTON HOUSE DURHAM ROAD CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr P Gray Chilton Town Council, Hutton House, Durham Road, Chilton , Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 19 August 2008

11. 7/2008/0358/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 3 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR SHOWER ROOM EXTENSION

LOCATION: 21 WEARDALE WALK SHILDON CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr A Ward 21 Weardale Walk, Shildon, Co Durham, DL4 2DE

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 13 August 2008

12. 7/2008/0337/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 25 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO THE REAR

LOCATION: 15 SOUTH TERRACE SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr Brown 15 South Terrace, Spennymoor, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 6 August 2008

Page 52

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

13. 7/2008/0360/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 8 July 2008

PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICES TO PHYSIOTHERAPY CLINIC

LOCATION: 1 BEAUMONT SQUARE DURHAM WAY SOUTH AYCLIFFE BUSINESS PARK NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr J Griffiths Aycliffe Physiotherapy, Langton Business Centre, Durham Way, Aycliffe Business Park, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 15 August 2008

14. 7/2008/0362/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 3 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO REAR

LOCATION: 34 LIGHTFOOT ROAD NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr Slater 34 Lightfoot Road, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham, DL5 4EP

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 13 August 2008

15. 7/2008/0363/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 8 July 2008

PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNIT TO FORM RETAIL FOOD STORE AND RETAIL UNIT, NEW SHOP FRONT AND CREATION OF ACCESS RAMP AND STEPS

LOCATION: FORMER CO-OP RETAIL AREA CHURCH STREET SHILDON CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr M Garlinge Netto Foodstores Ltd, Elmsall Way, South Elmsall, West Yorkshire, WF9 2XX

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 19 August 2008

Page 53

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

16. 7/2008/0370/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 8 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND FRONT PORCH

LOCATION: 2 KERR CRESCENT SEDGEFIELD CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mrs K Barnes 2 Kerr Crescent, Sedgefield, Co Durham, TS21 2EG

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 15 August 2008

17. 7/2008/0379/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 10 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF GARAGE AND SUN ROOM EXTENSION TO SIDE AND REAR

LOCATION: 16 SHARP ROAD NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr D Westgarth 16 Sharp Road, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham, DL5 5NX

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 15 August 2008

18. 7/2008/0380/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 14 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO REAR

LOCATION: 4 KESTREL COURT NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mrs A Murray 4 Kestrel Court, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 15 August 2008

Page 54

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

19. 7/2008/0388/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 28 July 2008

PROPOSAL: TRIMMING OF 4 SYCAMORE TREES (TREE PRESERVATION ORDER)

LOCATION: 21 GLEBE CLOSE FISHBURN CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr A Grafton 21 Glebe Close, Fishburn, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 22 August 2008

20. 7/2008/0390/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 28 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF 1 NO. DWELLING (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

LOCATION: LAND ADJACENT TO 48 NORTH STREET SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mrs J Walker 48 North Street , Spennymoor, Co Durham

DECISION: WITHDRAWN on 22 August 2008

21. 7/2008/0391/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 18 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO THE REAR

LOCATION: 26 GRASMERE SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr J Taylor 26 Grasmere, Spennymoor, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 27 August 2008

Page 55

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

22. 7/2008/0399/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 30 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO REAR

LOCATION: 18 STATION ROAD SEDGEFIELD CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mrs G Fletcher 18 Station Road, Sedgefield, Co Durham, TS21 2DA

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 29 August 2008

23. 7/2008/0410/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 28 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO REAR

LOCATION: 5 BLUEBELL WALK SHILDON CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr C Folkard 5 Bluebell Walk, Shildon, Co Durham, DL4 2DS

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 29 August 2008

24. 7/2008/0361/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 14 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO REAR

LOCATION: 4 GAMUL CLOSE NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr E Stapleton 4 Gamul Close, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham, DL5 7QW

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 15 August 2008

Page 56

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

25. 7/2008/0418/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 30 July 2008

PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF GARAGE INTO BEDROOM WITH NEW PITCHED ROOF OVER

LOCATION: 22 ROSEDALE SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mrs J Leighton 22 Rosedale, Spennymoor, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 1 September 2008

26. 7/2008/0336/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 3 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

LOCATION: 3 ELDERBERRY MEWS FISHBURN CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mrs E Austick 3 Elderberry Mews, Fishburn , Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 28 August 2008

27. 7/2008/0332/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 1 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND FRONT PORCH

LOCATION: 10 MOOR FARM SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr John Birch 10 Moor Farm , Spennymoor, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 19 August 2008

Page 57

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

28. 7/2008/0138/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 20 March 2008

PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF LOFT SPACE TO CREATE STAFF ROOM AND INSERTION OF DORMER WINDOWS TO FRONT AND REAR ELEVATION

LOCATION: ASHBY AND ATKINSON DENTAL PRACTICE 70 CHURCH STREET SHILDON CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr Ashby & Mr Atkinson 70 Church Street, Shildon, Co Durham, DL4 1DY

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 6 August 2008

29. 7/2008/0179/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 14 April 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO SIDE AND REAR, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, ERECTION OF GARAGE TO SIDE

LOCATION: 19 HIGH GREEN WOODHAM NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mrs V Goodfellow 19 High Green, Woodham, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 6 August 2008

30. 7/2008/0232/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 1 July 2008

PROPOSAL: RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF A GARDEN SHED

LOCATION: 37 PRIMROSE DRIVE SHILDON CO DURHAM DL4 2JQ

APPLICANT: Mr Paul Brocki 37 Primrose Drive, Redworth Park, Shildon, Co Durham, DL4 2JQ

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 19 August 2008

Page 58

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

31. 7/2008/0249/DM OFFICER:David Walker

APPLICATION DATE: 23 May 2008

PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO THREE FORMER AGRICULTURAL BUILDING /STABLES TO FORM INTERNAL KENNELS AND INTERNAL PADDOCK TO HOUSE UP TO 96 ACTIVE AND RETIRED GREYHOUNDS FOR TRAINING AND RE-HOUSING PURPOSE PLUS CONSTRUCTION OF TWO 100M x 25M EXTERNAL EXERCISE RUNS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS

LOCATION: GREENSIDE FARM WEST LANE TRIMDON CO. DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr A Macari Greenside Farm Cottage, West Lane, Trimdon Village, County Durham, TS29 6ND

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 21 August 2008

32. 7/2008/0253/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 15 May 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION

LOCATION: 19 QUEENS DRIVE SEDGEFIELD STOCKTON-ON-TEES TS21 2JJ

APPLICANT: Mr J Rowland 19 Queens Drive, Sedgefield, Stockton-on-Tees, TS21 2JJ

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 6 August 2008

33. 7/2008/0267/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 18 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SUN LOUNGE EXTENSION TO REAR

LOCATION: 3 SMYTHSON CLOSE SCHOOL AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr E Monaghan 3 Smythson Close, School Aycliffe, Co Durham, DL5 6TB

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 6 August 2008

Page 59

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

34. 7/2008/0271/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 4 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF 2 NO. DWELLINGS

LOCATION: LAND REAR OF 20 COMMERCIAL STREET TRIMDON STATION CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr Keith Thompson 21 Front Street South, Trimdon Village, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 29 August 2008

35. 7/2008/0274/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 27 May 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF AIRCRAFT HANGER

LOCATION: LAND AT FISHBURN AIRFIELD WEST HOUSE FARM SEDGEFIELD CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr Mark Meynell c/o Agent,

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 19 August 2008

36. 7/2008/0275/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 3 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF 8FT DOUBLE WROUGHT IRON GATES

LOCATION: 8 BUTTERWICK ROAD FISHBURN CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr John Waller Orchard House, 8 Butterwick Road, Fishburn, Co Durham , TS21 4AP

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 6 August 2008

Page 60

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

37. 7/2008/0279/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 30 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR OF EXISTING GARAGE AND DWELLING

LOCATION: 4 WILTON COURT NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM DL5 7PU

APPLICANT: Mr Steven Eltringham 4 Wilton Court, Greenfields, Newton Ayclliffe, County Durham, DL5 7PU

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 13 August 2008

38. 7/2008/0335/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 23 June 2008

PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF EXTERNAL PLANT AND ASSOCIATED COMPOUND

LOCATION: THE CO-OPERATIVE STORE CHURCH STREET SHILDON CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: The Co-operative Group Property Division, Po Box 53, New Century House, Manchester, M60 4ES

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 13 August 2008

39. 7/2008/0289/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 31 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF GLAZED ENTRANCE ATRIUM, ALTERATIONS TO EAST AND SOUTH ELEVATION, INSERTION OF NEW WINDOW IN WEST ELEVATION AND RELOCATION OF EXISTING CAR PARKING

LOCATION: TYNE TEES PACKAGING GRINDON WAY HEIGHINGTON LANE BUSINESS PARK NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr G Wiper Tyne Tees Packaging Ltd, Grindon Way, Heighington Lane Business Park, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham, DL5 6DQ

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 21 August 2008

Page 61

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

40. 7/2008/0298/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 19 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF EXTENSIONS TO FRONT AND REAR

LOCATION: 7 BARNARD CLOSE NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM DL5 4SP

APPLICANT: Mr Steven Stewart 7 Barnard Close, Woodham, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham, DL5 4SP

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 6 August 2008

41. 7/2008/0305/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 19 June 2008

PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE FROM B2 (GENERAL INDUSTRY) TO B1 (BUSINESS), B2 (GENERAL INDUSTRY) AND B8 (STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION)

LOCATION: THRISLINGTON PRODUCTS DURHAM WAY SOUTH AYCLIFFE INDUSTRIAL PARK CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Coast Properties & Finance Ltd 20 Berkley Street, London, W1J 8EE

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 13 August 2008

42. 7/2008/0307/DM OFFICER:David Walker

APPLICATION DATE: 3 July 2008

PROPOSAL: VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 7 & 9 OF PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE 7/2007/0591/DM TO ALLOW THE USE OF UNITS 1 & 9 AS A COFFEE BAR/DELICATESSAN

LOCATION: LAND AT DURHAM WAY SOUTH AYCLIFFE INDUSTRIAL PARK NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr Craig Peterson Peterson Property & Investments Ltd, Ayclea House, 3 North Terrace, Aycliffe Village, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 28 August 2008

Page 62

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

43. 7/2008/0313/DM OFFICER:David Gibson

APPLICATION DATE: 23 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR

LOCATION: 6 CHILTON CLOSE WOODHAM NEWTON AYCLIFFE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr I Osbiston 6 Chilton Close, Woodham, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham, DL5 4RH

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 18 August 2008

44. 7/2008/0314/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 1 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF 1ST FLOOR EXTENSION OVER EXISTING GARAGE, ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND SUN ROOM EXTENSION TO THE REAR

LOCATION: 17 MIDDLEHAM WALK SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr Pickering 17 Middleham Walk , Spennymoor, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 6 August 2008

45. 7/2008/0317/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 13 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION

LOCATION: 21 DEAN ROAD FERRYHILL CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr Colin Etherington 21 Dean Road , Ferryhill, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 6 August 2008

Page 63

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

46. 7/2008/0319/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 12 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION

LOCATION: 8 RUSHMOOR SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr David Parker 8 Rushmoor, Spennymoor, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 7 August 2008

47. 7/2008/0321/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 15 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF 2 NO. BAY WINDOWS TO THE LOUNGE AND CONVERSION OF CONSERVATORY INTO SUN ROOM

LOCATION: 4 ROOKERY GARDENS RUSHYFORD CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr S Taylor 4 Rookery Gardens, Rushyford, Ferryhill, Durham, DL17 0LR

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 22 August 2008

48. 7/2008/0324/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 27 June 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF BOARDING CATTERY

LOCATION: CORBRAE HOUSE TODHILLS SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mrs E Johnston Corbrae House, Todhills, Bishop Auckland, Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 19 August 2008

Page 64

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - DELEGATED DECISIONS ______

49. 7/2008/0326/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 9 July 2008

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO THE REAR

LOCATION: 23 BECKWITH DRIVE TRIMDON GRANGE CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: Mr C Ford 23 Beckwith Drive, Trimdon Village , Co Durham

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 19 August 2008

50. 7/2008/0292/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 13 June 2008

PROPOSAL: EXTERNAL WORKS COMPRISING RESURFACING ACCESS ROAD, REMODELLING EXISTING ACCESSIBLE AND GENERAL PARKING AREAS TO MAIN ENTRANCE, NEW SURFACES TO EXTERNAL CIRCULATION SPACES INCLUDING NEW FOOTPATH CROSSING, PROPOSED CANOPY NEAR ENTRANCE, RESURFACING AND ADJUSTMENT TO LEVELS OF EXISTING PLAYGROUNDS, LIGHTING BOLLARDS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL BOLLARDS WITHIN SITEe AND PROPOSED FENCING TO SCHOOL BOUNDARIES AND PLAYGROUND

LOCATION: BISHOP MIDDLEHAM C OF E PRIMARY SCHOOL FRONT STREET BISHOP MIDDLEHAM

APPLICANT: The Board of Governers Front Street, Bishop Middleham, Ferryhill, Durham, DL17 9AL

DECISION: WITHDRAWN on 12 August 2008

51. 7/2008/0427/DM OFFICER:Mark O'Sullivan

APPLICATION DATE: 1 August 2008

PROPOSAL: DISPLAY OF 3 NO. ADVERTISEMENTS ON NEW FASCIA BOARDS (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)

LOCATION: 45-47 AND 49-51 CHEAPSIDE SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM

APPLICANT: The Smart Corporation Ltd Tower House, Tower Street , Hartlepool,

DECISION: STANDARD APPROVAL on 1 September 2008

Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 66 Item 10

SEDGEFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL

APPEALS OUTSTANDING UP TO 2 nd SEPTEMBER 2008

Ref.No. AP/2008/0001 Location LAND WEST OF HARDWICK PARK AND NORTH OF THE A689 SEDGEFIELD STOCKTON ON TEES Proposal CHANGE OF USE OF THE LAND FOR THE SITING OF 330 STATIC CARAVANS AND 48 LODGES TOGETHER WITH ANCILLARY LANDSCAPE, ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND ENGINEERING WORKS AND THE USE OF BRAKES FARMHOUSE AS A MANAGEMENT CENTRE TOGETHER WITH THE ERECTION OF AN AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO INCLUDE ANCILLARY SHOP Appellant Theakston Farms LLP Received 27 th February 2008

An Inspector’s letter was received on 1 st September 2008. The Appeal was Dismissed. The details of the decision will be reported to Committee in due course.

Ref.No. AP/2008/0003 Location LOW HARDWICK FARM SEDGEFIELD CO DURHAM Proposal USE OF LAND FOR OFF ROAD RECREATIONAL MOTOR SPORTS ACTIVITY AND ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING OPERATIONS (RETROSPECTIVE) Appellant Mr Alf Walton Received 25 th March 2008

The Appeal is to be dealt with by way of a Public Inquiry ______

Ref.No. AP/2008/0005 Location REAR OF 51 ATTWOOD TERRACE TUDHOE SPENNYMOOR CO. DURHAM Proposal CHANGE OF USE FROM BAKEHOUSE TO 1NO. 2 BED DWELLING INCLUDING INCREASING ROOF HEIGHT TO CREATE FIRST FLOOR LIVING SPACE Appellant Pauleen Sedgewick Received 8th May 2008

The Appeal is to be dealt with by way of Written Representations ______

Ref.No. AP/2008/0006 Location ST JOHNS SCHOOL HOUSE CENTRAL PARADE SHILDON CO DURHAM Proposal ERECTION OF DWELLING AND DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE WITH BOILER ROOM Appellant Mr D Stephenson Received 13 th June 2008

The Appeal is to be dealt with by way of Written Representations

Page 67

Ref.No. AP/2008/0008/EN Location 17 NORTH END SEDGEFIELD STOCKTON ON TEES Proposal APPEAL AGAINST REMEDIAL NOTICE Appellant Wendy Earnshaw Received 24 th July 2008

The Appeal is to be dealt with by way of Written Representations ______

Ref.No. AP/2008/0009 Location 128 HIGH STREET BYERS GREEN SPENNYMOOR CO DURHAM Proposal ERECTION OF TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION Appellant Mrs P Green Received 24 th July 2008

The Appeal is to be dealt with by way of Written Representations

Ref.No. AP/2008/0010/EN Location ST JOHNS SCHOOL HOUSE CENTRAL PARADE SHILDON CO DURHAM Proposal ERECTION OF FENCE IN EXCESS OF PERMITTED HEIGHT USING INAPPROPRIATE MATERIALS Appellant Mr David Stephenson Received 13 th August 2008

The Appeal is to be dealt with by way of Written Representations ______

Page 68 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1, 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A Item 11 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 70