Self-build home at Church House, Stanhope, Bishop Auckland

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-storey four-bedroom self-build home, garage, retaining walls and steps within a sloping garden plot.

“The application site located within Stanhope and within the Stanhope Conservation Area. The application site is located to the rear of Elm Tree Cottage and Church House which are situated on Front Street, Stanhope. It comprises a section of the garden of Church House which extends south and east across the rear of Elm Tree Cottage and down to Bondisle Way. The application site slopes from north to south toward Bondisle Way.”

“Retaining walls would be installed to the north, east and west of the property together with a retaining wall to the north of the garage to create a grassed area between the garage and the proposed dwelling. Steps would be installed along the western elevation, to provide pedestrian access from the Bondisle Way to the rear northern edge of the plot.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site lies within Stanhope Conservation Area behind properties on Front Street, near residential buildings, garages and the Stanhope Masonic Club.

“There are residential properties to the north, west and far east, the Stanhope masonic Club to the immediate east and domestic garages and residential properties to the south.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the application site.

“There is no relevant planning history relating to the application site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development would harm the historic layout and conservation area, overlook neighbours and provide insufficient garden space.

“The proposal would not be in keeping with the existing historic pattern and form of development in the locality and would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Stanhope Conservation Area. The proposal therefore results in harm to the significance of the heritage asset and the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh this harm.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support, describing the site, earlier planning advice, access, materials, separation distances and expected improvements.

Members’ debate

Members discussed the site’s condition, backland development, separation distances, conservation area, materials, garden space and residents’ representations.

“Councillor J Campbell asked for clarification on what was meant by backland development and whether the separation distances were measured from the Masonic Hall and other properties to the rear and front of the development to consider all properties in the vicinity.”

“The Principal Planning Officer explained that backland development was the construction of a new building on land located behind existing properties such as on large gardens or underused plots. The separation distance measurements had been taken from the Masonic Hall and other properties. It had been seen on the site visit that there was very little to the south side. All separation distances were from the rear elevation for properties and the front side of the Masonic Hall.”

Minutes

The votes

A motion to approve was lost, after which members moved and seconded a motion to follow the refusal recommendation.

“It was noted the application had been moved and seconded for approval and upon a vote being taken the motion was LOST.”

“Councillor L Brown moved a motion to go with officer recommendation to refuse the application. Councillor J Campbell seconded the motion.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee refused the application because it contravened Policies 6, 29 and 44 of the County Durham Plan.

“That the application be REFUSED based on contravening Policies 6, 29 and 44 of the County Durham Plan.”

Minutes