The meeting scheduled for 10 December 2024 included three planning applications for the committee to consider. Two of these applications were for major residential developments, and the third was for advertisement consent for a convenience store.

DM/24/00380/FPA - Site of former Easington Maintenance Depot to the rear of 31 to 37 Peter Lee Cottages, Wheatley Hill, DH6 3RH

This application, by Gleeson Regeneration Ltd, was for full planning permission for the erection of 73 houses and bungalows on two parcels of land in Wheatley Hill.

The site, which is currently vacant and grassed, is bounded to the east by the Wheatley Hill Primary School. The larger, western parcel of the site is bisected by a public footpath that is part of a well-used route through the village. The smaller, eastern parcel of the site is adjacent to a community nursery.

The development would include 7 affordable homes and would provide a mix of 2, 3 and 4-bedroom houses.

There were a number of objections to the development, both from statutory consultees and from the public.

The Arboricultural Officer objected to the removal of 75 trees from the site, arguing that the proposed housing layout quite clearly paid no regard to existing trees on the site with no attempt to incorporate some of the high category trees into the layout design.

The County Landscape Officer, in their response to the application, said that the proposed change would bring about significant landscape and visual effects locally, which considering the existing landscape baseline would bring some harm.

Coxhoe Parish Council objected to the development on the basis that it would not provide a financial contribution towards primary education places at Coxhoe Primary School. They argued that this would mean that parents living in the new development would be forced to send their children to primary schools in other villages, with walking routes to these schools being dangerous. The Parish Council also argued that the pupil forecasts, upon which the Council's Education Officer had based their decision not to request a contribution, were incorrect. In a rebuttal to the Education Officer's assessment, the Parish Council said:

the Parish Council would ask the Committee to request a voluntary primary s106 contribution from the developer although according to their current policy, the Council could not require it.

Councillor Jake Miller objected to the loss of privacy to residents living in Johnson Estate, the loss of a public footpath, and the impact of additional traffic on Shinwell Terrace.

Local residents also objected to the loss of green space and the impact of increased traffic on the village. Concerns were also raised about drainage, water pressure, and the impact of the development on the character of the village.

The applicant, Gleeson Homes, argued that the development would provide much-needed affordable housing in a sustainable location. They also highlighted the contributions that the development would make to the local community, including financial contributions towards secondary school places, SEND provision, and GP provision.

DM/24/01875/FPA - 28 Herons Court, Gilesgate, Durham, DH1 2HD

This application was for change of use from a 4-bedroom dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a 4-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4).

The applicant was Mr Mcconway.

Belmont Parish Council objected to the application, arguing that there was no need for additional student accommodation in the area.

Two letters of objection were received from members of the public, both of whom raised concerns about the impact of the development on parking and highway safety. One of these objectors also expressed concern about the impact of the development on social cohesion, arguing that the introduction of an additional HMO would unbalance the community .

The City of Durham Trust also objected to the application. In their response they said:

4 Monks Crescent was refused as the scheme would unbalance the community, detrimentally impacting community cohesion and amenity of residents from increased noise and disturbance, should this not be applied on any residential estate.

The report pack included a response from the Council's HMO Licensing team. They advised that the development would not require a licence under Part 2 of The Housing Act 2004, as it had fewer than 5 occupants. However, they recommended a number of conditions to ensure that the development met the Council's fire safety standards.

The Council's Spatial Policy Team advised that, if the development were to be approved, it would mean that 8.9% of properties in a 100-metre radius of the site would be HMOs. This would be below the 10% threshold set out in the Council's policy on HMOs, and therefore the development would be acceptable in principle. They also recommended a condition restricting the number of bedrooms in the HMO to 4.

DM/24/02792/AD - How Do You Do, York Road, Peterlee, SR8 2DP

This was an application for advertisement consent for the display of new signage at a convenience store. The applicant was Ms Reena Colins.

The application included 2 externally illuminated fascia signs, 2 non-illuminated ACM panels, 4 poster cases and window vinyls. The signs would advertise One Stop, the proposed occupier of the unit.

Councillor Louise Fenwick and Councillor Susan McDonnell raised concerns about the impact of the illuminated signs on the amenity of nearby residents.

The Environmental Health Nuisance Action Team raised no objection to the application. However, they did recommend conditions to restrict the hours of illumination of the signs.