81 homes and convenience store at Land To The West Of St Michaels Rise, Hawthorn

What was proposed

The application sought 81 homes, a convenience store, affordable housing, parking, landscaping, open space, drainage basins and a new access from Stockton Road.

“The proposal includes a 200 sqm single storey rectangular retail unit for a convenience store that would face onto Stockton Road within the west of the site and north of the proposed access. This would have a parking area to the front with 8 spaces. This would be constructed in facing brick with cladding panels and would have a dark grey roof.”

“A single access point is proposed at the western site boundary to provide vehicular access to the housing and convenience store, this would be taken from the B1432 Stockton Road.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site comprised four agricultural fields beside Hawthorn, near the conservation area, listed buildings, the church, roads, countryside and a public right of way.

“The application site comprises four agricultural fields to the west and north of Hawthorn Village. One field is currently used for arable farming and the remaining three for pasture. The site measures a total of 6.14 hectares (ha) in area. The site is located directly to the west of the 21st century housing development at St Michael’s Rise and the Hawthorn Conservation Area (CA).”

“The Hawthorn Conservation Area which is a designated heritage assets lies immediately adjacent to the site to the east, with the nearest listed buildings being the Grade II listed West Farmhouse (72m distant) and The Rectory (82m),War Memorial (103m distant) Church Hall (100m distant), Garden House (122m distant). The St Michael and All Angels Church which is a non-designated heritage asset lies 35m to the east of the site.”

Officer report

Planning history

The site had no recorded history of planning applications.

“The site has no history of planning applications on record.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended refusal because the development was unsustainable and would cause significant landscape, heritage and settlement-character harm that benefits could not outweigh.

“The planning balance is not a mathematical and precise calculation of weight given to each benefit and harm. Although Officers have cumulatively identified a range of benefits, in this instance it is found that the harm and development plan conflicts to be so significant, so as to outweigh those benefits.”

“2) The development would cause adverse harm to the character and appearance of the area and the qualities of designated landscapes, while also adversely affecting the setting of both designated and non-designated heritage assets. The identified benefits of the scheme do not outweigh this harm.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council and a local resident spoke against the application, while the agent and a developer representative spoke in support.

What members debated

Members discussed housing need, sustainability, road safety, flooding, the shop, financial contributions and the importance of Hawthorn’s historic landscape and character.

“Referring to road safety, Councillor Bell queried the number of incidents at this location. He noted that the flood risk had been described as low level and he queried the location of the flooding and requested further details of the proposed mitigation. He did not consider financial contributions were a benefit and noted that the shop provided had only 200 square metres of floor space.”

“The Chair agreed that although Members had to give significant weight to housing need and there were some benefits, the special character of the location was important and significant. The arguments presented in relation to sustainability were valid and she had lost count of the number of conflicting policies. The harm identified could not be mitigated against or compensated for. This was an Area of High Landscape Value in the only historic village in East Durham.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because future residents would rely heavily on private cars and the development’s landscape and heritage harm outweighed its benefits.

“1) The proposal represented an unsustainable and disproportionate form of development in the countryside. Given the limited services and facilities available within the village of Hawthorn future occupiers would be heavily reliant on private car use to access essential services and amenities in surrounding settlements, contrary to the transport mode hierarchy.”

Minutes