Two dwellings and garage at Fernhill, Crossgate Moor, Durham

“Proposal: Outline planning application for access with all other matters reserved for the construction of 2no. dwelling with attached garages, demolition of stable block, conservatory extension on Fernhill and erection of garage.”

“Outline planning permission is sought for access with all other matters reserved for the construction of 2no. dwellings with attached garages, demolition of stable block, conservatory extension on Fernhill and erection of a garage.”

“Fernhill is a large detached house lying in extensive grounds on the north western edge of the Crossgate Moor area of Durham. To the west is open countryside, to the east the north-south running A167. To the north lie residential properties on Whitesmocks Avenue, separated from the application site by the unsurfaced Club Lane – a public right of way running in an east-west direction.”

“The site has an extensive planning history. The most recent and relevant history is as follows:”

“11/00535/FPA – Erection of 3no. dwellinghouses – refused and dismissed at appeal. • DM/14/03327/FPA – Erection of four detached dwellings with attached garages, demolition of the stable block conservatory extension on Fernhill and erection of a car port / covered area for parking a horse box – refused. • DM/21/02896/FPA – Redevelopment of stables to provide 1no. 4 bed dwelling – refused and dismissed on appeal.”

“The application proposal falls within land identified as previously developed land and would not cause ‘significant harm’ to the openness of the Green Belt. This test on measurable harm is materially different than in the previous NPPF which referred to development not having a ‘greater impact’ on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing arrangement.”

“In terms of landscape harm, there would be some localised harm to the character of the local landscape / townscape from the loss of trees and the introduction of built form in Plot 1 into the open grounds south of club Lane, however this is not considered to cause unacceptable harm to the character, quality or distinctiveness of…”

“City of Durham Parish Council – object to the application on the grounds that the proposals amount to inappropriate development within the green belt and would result in material harm to both the spatial and visual openness of the designation. They also argue that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the application site can be treated as ‘Grey Belt’ land.”

“Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Nuisance) – No objection subject to conditions.”

“Councillor M Wilkes asked for the slide showing the menage to be shown on screen and asked whether that was within the garden. The Senior Planning Officer displayed the slide and noted that the menage was within the site and garden attached to Fernhill.”

“Councillor J Elmer noted one could argue black was white and day was night, however, the areas did not look like previously developed land, rather it looked like garden that had not been developed upon over the years. He noted that it had been stated that the definition of curtilage had been established via caselaw, however, it seemed to be stretching the definition of curtilage, to cover all the land owned by the applicant.”

“Councillor M Wilkes had moved that the application be refused, he was seconded by Councillor J Elmer and upon a vote being taken the motion was LOST.”

“Councillor A Schulman had moved that the application be approved, he was seconded by Councillor A Eales and upon a vote being taken it was:”

“That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions and s106 Legal Agreement as set out within the report.”