93 dwellings at Land To The North Of George Pit Lane, Great Lumley

What was proposed

The application sought 93 dwellings with access, infrastructure and landscaping, including 14 affordable homes and 10 bungalows.

“Proposal: Erection of 93 dwellings with associated access, infrastructure and landscaping…”

“2no. two-bedroom houses as Discount Market Sale; • 2no. three-bedroom houses as Discount Market Sale; • 4no. two-bedroom bungalows as Affordable Rent; • 4no. two-bedroom houses as Affordable Rent; and • 2no. three-bedroom houses as Affordable Rent.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 5.57-hectare site was part of two agricultural fields south of Great Lumley, outside the settlement, in the countryside and not allocated for development.

“The site comprises part of two agricultural fields and measures 5.57 hectares (ha) in area, and is located to the south of the village of Great Lumley. To the west of the site is Cocken Lane with a sports field further beyond.”

“The site is not allocated for development in the County Durham Plan. The site is within the countryside, though is not within a designated Area of Higher Landscape Value, or within the Green Belt.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local councillor and a resident spoke against the proposal, while the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

The vote

Councillors voted unanimously to refuse the application against the officer recommendation.

“He moved a motion to go against Officer recommendation and refuse the application.”

“Councillor M Wilkes also agreed with Councillor A Bell’s comments that Members were clearly looking at the same application as before with nothing changing only the number of houses. He noted there were already over 13,000 houses passed to be built in the County. He wished developers would not land bank but build houses as it was adding pressures elsewhere.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because conflicts with Policies 6, 10, 21 and 29 created harm that significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.

“Upon a vote to refuse the application, it was unanimously…”

“That the application be REFUSED based on it conflicting with Policies 6, 10, 21 and 29 of the County Durham Plan with such harm significantly and demonstrably outweighing the benefits of the proposal.”

Minutes