18 homes and supported living at South Church Road, Bishop Auckland

What was proposed

The application sought 18 dwellings and one supported living unit, with a new access from South Church Road and associated site works.

“8 Access to the site is via South Church Road. There are significant land level changes falling down towards the River Gaunless. An approximate level change of up to and above 7m is evident from South Church Road to the most eastern part of the site.”

“13 Access would be via a new junction from South Church Road with one main road into the site. 15 dwellings would be located facing South Church Road with three bungalows proposed to the eastern part of the site and one supported living unit proposed to the south of the entrance road in front of the open space.”

Officer report

The site and its constraints

The undeveloped site covers about 1.16 hectares, slopes steeply towards the River Gaunless, and contains a public footpath.

“7 The application site relates to an undeveloped parcel of land that measures approximately 1.16 hectares in area, located within the settlement of Bishop Auckland. The site is bound by South Church Road (A689) to the west; Weardale Railway Line to the north; the River Gaunless to the east and residential properties to the south.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An outline permission for up to 28 dwellings expired, while a later application for 22 dwellings was refused in 2023.

“19 Whilst outline planning permission for up to 28 dwellings was granted in 2015, this was a number of years ago and has since expired without reserved matters ever being approved. Full planning permission for residential development on this site has not previously been granted.”

“22 3/2013/0407 – Residential development (outline up to 28 dwellings. Approved 14th May 2015. This application was for outline consent only with all matters reserved and was assessed under the policies of the former Wear Valley District Local Plan. The permission has since lapsed.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered that poor design, an unattractive footpath diversion, drainage and flood-risk concerns, biodiversity information and affordable-housing evidence outweighed the benefits.

“196 In summary, it is considered that the proposed scheme conflicts with specific development plan policies. As the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, the application should be determined in the context of NPPF Paragraph 11 d) which states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF taken as a whole, having particular…”

“199 Overall, the adverse impacts of the scheme, including the poor design of the development when assessed against the Building for Life criteria including the significant engineering works to increase the land level and the inappropriate diversion of the PROW; and insufficient information submitted regarding flood risk and drainage…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Consultees raised concerns about drainage, parking, flood risk, ecology, landscape and the public footpath, while some consultees had no objection subject to conditions.

“29 Drainage and Coastal Protection (Lead Local Flood Authority) – Concerns raised that the proposal does not meet with policy in providing an acceptable drainage strategy…”

“30 Highway Authority (Development Management) - Concerns raised regarding the size of some of the parking spaces and also the accessibility of some of the spaces proposed.”

Officer report

What residents said

Four objections raised concerns about highway safety, construction disruption, wildlife, privacy, open space, flooding, services and consultation arrangements.

“48 The application has been advertised in the local press by site notice and individual notification letters sent to 72 neighbouring properties. 49 A total of 1 representation and 4 objections have been received in response to the consultation exercise.”

“Loss of Privacy • Loss of View • Loss of an area of open space.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local councillor supported the scheme, a resident objected because of flooding and traffic, and the agent sought a deferral for further work.

What members debated

Members discussed the affordable-housing contribution, design scores, walking routes, the footpath, highway access, missing information and whether deferral was possible.

“The Senior Planning Officer responded that the scheme had been assessed by the Council’s Design Review Panel and the red scores had not been just about distances to the bus stops and amenities but the walking route to get to them was unacceptable. There were significant level changes proposed to the divert the route of the PROW down a sloping bank which was a worse route than the original.”

“L Ackermann, Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) advised that the options available to committee were that Members could go with officer recommendation to refuse the application or Members could defer the application subject to gaining all the relevant information. Members would not be able to approve the application as relevant information was missing. If members were minded to defer the application she requested reasons why.”

Minutes

The vote

Members unanimously voted to follow the officer recommendation and refuse the application.

“Councillor D Freeman was happy to move a motion to accept officers’ recommendation to refuse the application as the application was nowhere near acceptable. He was satisfied that Planning Officer had tried to reduce the issues but the scheme was not deliverable to the satisfaction of Planning Policies. The design was poor and unsatisfactory to manage any surface water.”

“Both Councillor A Savory and Councillor A Schulman seconded the motion to go with officer recommendation to refuse the application. Councillor A Savory had agreed with Councillor D Freeman as a lot of time had lapsed, the application had nine red scores and there was a raft of issues that had not be resolved.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the development had poor design, an unsuitable footpath diversion, inadequate drainage and flood-risk evidence, insufficient biodiversity information and incomplete affordable-housing details.

“The development would not adequately manage surface water on the site and does not demonstrate that the proposed development would not exacerbate flood risk elsewhere. The application therefore conflicts with Policies 6, 35 and 36 of the County Durham Plan and Part 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate how the development would deliver an appropriate biodiversity net gain and that no protected species would be adversely affected. The application would therefore fail to accord with Policies 41 and 43 of the County Durham Plan and Part 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Officer report