New dwelling with garage at Woodland Barn, Chilton, Ferryhill

What was proposed

The application sought a new single-storey dwelling with habitable roof space and a detached two-car garage, partly retrospectively.

“Full Application Description: Proposed erection of new dwelling to include detached garage (part retrospective)”

“The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of one dwellinghouse with a detached garage. The dwelling would be single storey, with habitable roof space above the ground floor. The detached, two car garage is also designed to feature a floor above in its roof space, to be used for storage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is in countryside near Chilton, beside converted barns and within the settings of listed heritage assets and protected trees.

“The application site comprises Woodland Barn, part of Great Chilton Farm. The site lies within the countryside, approximately 700 metres from the eastern edge of Chilton. The site is adjacent to a small cluster of residential dwellings to its east and south, consisting of approximately seven converted barns. 85- 100 metres to the west and south west, a further small cluster of some six dwellings are located within the listed park and garden, noted as farm cottages.”

“The site is within the setting of Great Chilton Farmhouse, a Grade II listed building to the south east. Two trees immediately to the west of the site, across the unclassified access road, benefit from Tree Protection Orders (TPOs), though these trees lie outside of the application site itself.”

Officer report

Earlier permission and construction

A 2018 barn-conversion permission was approved, a later application was withdrawn, and construction continued after the barn collapsed until work paused.

“The following planning applications are relevant to the current application:”

“DM/18/03373/FPA – Barn conversion with raised roof to create 1.5 storey dwelling including detached garage – Approved on 17.12.2018”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found that the proposal was a new countryside dwelling outside policy exceptions and that no essential rural-worker need had been shown.

“Relevant up to date planning policy, under which the new application is to be determined is CDP Policy 10. This states that development in the countryside will not be permitted unless the proposals relate to a number of exceptions or specific policies in the plan would allow for it.”

“Policy 12 of the CDP may allow for residential dwellings not in accordance with Policy 10, if they represent an essential rural worker’s dwelling. This Policy sets out specific criteria in order to assess the ‘essential need’ for a rural worker to reside in a certain location; whether a dwelling is essential depends on the needs of the enterprise, rather than the personal circumstances of the individuals involved.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, Design and Conservation, Trees, Ecology and Natural England raised no objection subject to specified mitigation, while Spatial Policy identified policy conflicts.

“Spatial Policy – The proposals fail to accord with Policy 10 of the County Durham Plan, as they do not comprise the change of use of an existing building. The proposals also fail to accord with Policy 12 as it has not clearly been evidenced that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently in this location.”

“Natural England – No objection subject to appropriate mitigation being secured by means of condition to secure nutrient neutrality and a habitat management plan.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Two objections raised concerns about access, design, privacy, heritage, boundaries and precedent, while the applicant said the scheme continued the approved project.

“The design faithfully follows the approved scheme, with only minor fenestration changes introduced for structural reasons and to incorporate modern sustainability measures. Natural stone, slate roofing and timber-style windows are proposed, ensuring that the building continues to reflect the rural vernacular and sit comfortably alongside other barn conversions in the locality.”

“We believe this application accords fully with both the Durham Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. While the officer’s report raises concerns under Policy 10, the principle of residential use on this site has already been lawfully established through the implementation of the 2018 permission. This provides an undeniable planning precedent.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The local member, applicant and planning consultant spoke in support, stressing the earlier permission, personal investment, similar design and brownfield use.

Members discussed the rebuild

Members questioned why the collapsed barn meant a new build, while officers and the legal officer explained that no existing building remained to convert.

“J Jennings, Principal Planning Officer explained that the application granted in 2018 was to convert the building and conserve the existing breeze blocks of the barn. These were the outer walls that were to be clad in stone. The application was approved at the time in accordance with Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework which allowed for development in the countryside that re-used redundant or disused buildings to enhance the immediate settings.”

“The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) explained that a new planning application was required due to technical issues. This was because the original plan was to convert a disused barn but as the building had collapsed this was no longer able. The application was recommended for refusal because at that point the barn was no longer standing and the development had to be considered as if it were an empty site.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to approve against the officer recommendation was proposed and seconded, and the committee approved it unanimously.

“Councillor P Sexton could not understand the technicalities or legislation provided in the CDP to assess the development on an individual basis. He moved a motion to go against officer recommendation and approve the application.”

“Councillor J Campbell seconded Councillor P Sexton’s motion to approve the application.”

Minutes

Approval arrangements

Approval was subject to delegated powers for officers to negotiate conditions, Section 106 contributions, a Section 39 agreement and a biodiversity exemption.

“The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) noted that as the application was recommended for refusal there were no conditions drawn up, Section 106 contributions agreed, Section 39 Agreement to mitigate nutrient neutrality or criteria met for self-build exemptions for BNG. If Members were minded to approve the application it would be subject to delegated decisions being given to officers to negotiate these issues.”

“That the application be APPROVED subject to delegated powers to be given to Officers to negotiate a suite of conditions, Section 106 contributions, Section 39 agreement and a self-build exemption for BNG.”

Minutes