140-lodge tourism development at Land To The West Of Fenhall Lodge Greencroft Park, Lanchester

The site and surroundings

The site is open countryside within Greencroft Park, an Area of High Landscape Value containing locally listed parkland and several listed structures.

“The application proposes development in open countryside around 1.2km north-west of the village of Lanchester. Lanchester sits broadly midway between Durham City and Consett on the A691. The site is north of the road within Greencroft Park, formerly Greencroft Estate, designated on the ‘Local List of Historic Parks, Gardens and Designed Landscape’.”

“There is a footpath connection from the site to Ornsby Hill to the east at Fenhall Lodge, a Grade II listed building outside the defined red line. The site is separated by countryside from Greencroft Industrial Estate to the north, from the linear small…”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the application site.

“There is no relevant planning history for the application site. Planning Policy…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish representative and local employer opposed the scheme, a badger group raised ecological objections, and the applicant’s representative supported it.

What members debated

Members weighed the scheme’s economic, tourism and heritage benefits against landscape harm and the absence of enough information about badger foraging and mitigation.

“The Senior Planning Officer explained that reserved matters did provide flexibility to judge areas of disagreement however the impact on badgers had to be clear before any determination could be made. There was simply not enough information with regards to their foraging habits to determine whether mitigation measures could make the application acceptable and this was a significant issue.”

“The Planning and Highways Lawyer emphasised that Members could not undertake a balancing exercise due to the lack of information regarding the impacts on badgers. If Members were minded to approve the application, he advised that the application should be deferred for further information to be provided.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee deferred the application so the applicant could submit further ecological information, and one member took no part in the decision.

“It was clarified that Councillor Griffiths had not been present for some time during the representations and therefore took no part in the decision.”

“That the application be DEFERRED in order for the Applicant to submit further ecological information.”

Minutes