105 homes at Land At Coopers Terrace, Thornley

What was proposed

The application sought 105 two-, three- and four-bedroom homes with associated landscaping, infrastructure, parking, footpaths and 11 affordable homes.

“Proposal: Full planning application for the erection of 105no. 2, 3, and 4 bedroom dwellings and associated infrastructure (Amended Description December 2025)”

“The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 105 dwellings, and associated landscaping and infrastructure. The development proposes the following mix of dwellings: • 11 two-bedroom bungalows; • 13 two-bedroom houses; • 53 three-bedroom houses; and • 28 four-bedroom houses. A total of 11 units (10%) would be provided as affordable housing. 16.”

Officer report

The site

The 4.96-hectare site lies within Thornley’s built-up area and includes former housing land now used as public open space.

“The site comprises an area of land measuring a total of 4.96 hectares (ha) in area, located within the built-up area of Thornley.”

“To the north of the site lie allotments. To the northwest lie residential dwellings, whilst to the west lies a cemetery. To the southwest lies a small timber building which is currently vacant, previously used as a gospel hall. To the south lies further public open space with residential dwellings beyond. To the east lie agricultural fields and a small paddock. The site encloses 12 existing residential dwellings located on Coopers Close.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the sustainable housing scheme’s benefits were not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by its identified harms.

“The site is not allocated for housing in the County Durham Plan, though it is land which has previously been used for housing, and is in a sustainable location within the built form of Thornley. The principle of developing the site is supported.”

“In accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF (the ‘titled balance’), given the absence of a five-year housing land supply, the identified adverse impacts (in terms of loss of amenity space, affordable housing, tree loss, and internal layout) do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development.”

Officer report

What residents said

Nine objections concerned open-space loss, traffic, local services, construction, privacy, trees, ecology, drainage and neighbouring amenity; four responses supported regeneration.

“Loss of public open space • A children’s play area should be proposed • More bungalows and affordable homes should be proposed • Increase in traffic and local road network capacity • Lack of frequent bus connections to Durham City • GP surgery capacity • Dentist surgery capacity • School capacity • Impact on amenity of neighbouring residents during construction period • Working hours should start at 8am not 7:30am, and should rarely occur on weekends • Proximity of…”

“Separation distances of proposed dwellings, and lack of privacy for neighbouring residents • Proximity of proposed trees to neighbouring properties • Loss of trees • Impact on protected species including bats, birds and hedgehogs • Lack of Biodiversity Net Gain • Capacity of foul sewer network • Site contains contaminated land, which was a factor in previous dwellings being demolished in the early 2000’s…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s representative addressed the committee and described work with the council on a high-quality housing scheme.

What members debated

Members discussed affordable rented homes and bungalows, tandem parking, street design, piling, and the decision to fund improvements to an existing play area.

“Councillor Wilkes advised that the Committee had to give regard to the housing needs and this site was in an area with 368 people on a waiting list for housing, 239 of which required a bungalow. Despite this, there were no bungalows included in the affordable housing allocation and he questioned whether this accorded to the CDP and the Councils priorities.”

“Councillor Bell considered the application to be a great use of a brownfield site. The local need was for rented properties although he understood that discounted market properties were a better fit with this type of scheme. He queried the lack of an on-site play area as in his opinion, it should have been included.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Approval was moved and seconded, while one member said he would not support the application because of affordable housing and highway concerns.

“Councillor Bellingham referred to the significant need in Thornley for housing and moved approval of the recommendation with the updated conditions. This motion was seconded by Councillor Hope. Councillor Wilkes advised that he would not be supporting the application due to it having inadequate affordable rent units in an area with significant need and unacceptable outstanding highways issues.”

Minutes