Agenda and draft minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and went through some general housekeeping arrangements for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M F L Durham CC, L J Haywood, J C Hughes, K Jennings, W J Laybourn, R H Siddall, J C Stilts and S White.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 3 September 2025.

The Chairperson referred Members to the supplementary pack circulated earlier that day, which included the Minutes of the last meeting.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the District Planning Committee held on 3 September 2025 be approved and confirmed.

To disclose the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registrable interests and Non-Registrable Interests relating to items of business on the agenda having regard to paragraph 9 and Appendix B of the Code of Conduct for Members.

(Members are reminded that they are also required to disclose any such interests as soon as they become aware should the need arise throughout the meeting).

There were none.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director: Planning and Implementation, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

It was noted from the Members’ Update that the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) had been undertaken by the Council’s Ecology consultant and was summarised in the Update.

Following the Officers’ recommendation Mr Singh an objector, Councillor Burgess (speaking on behalf of Althorne Parish Council), and Ms Haynes the Agent addressed the Committee.

Councillor M G Bassenger, a Ward Member, expressed concern regarding the proposed development, commenting on the character of the surrounding area, access to the site, the unsustainability of Althorne village, and the lack of facilities within the small village. He then proposed that the Officers recommendation of refusal be agreed. This was duly seconded.

During the debate that followed, Members discussed the application, with a number of concerns being raised regarding the proposal. In particular the:

·                proposed introduction of a large scale residential development outside of the Althorne settlement boundary. It was noted that Althorne was a small village with limited facilities, employment and services.

·                location of the site and access to public transport, the site would by reliant on use of cars.

·                adjacent highway, including vehicle speeds along the road and related accidents.

In response to questions, including a reason for refusal relating to sustainability, the Development Management Team Manager advised that should Members be mindful to refuse the application an additional reason for refusal could be added relating to the sustainability and scale of the development. She explained that if agreed the Committee would need to nominate a Member to work with officers should the decision be appealed. At this point, Councillor W Stamp nominated Councillors Bassenger A Fittock and herself.

In light of the earlier discussions, the Chairperson proposed that the Committee agree the additional reason for refusal to the Committee. This was duly seconded. The Officer clarified that the reason would be drafted and agreed in consultation with the Chairperson of the Committee and Councillor Stamp.

Following further discussion, the Chairperson moved the Officers’ recommendation of refusal with the additional reason for refusal relating to sustainability and the scale of the development. Upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED subject to the following reasons:

1.              The proposed development is beyond a settlement boundary where development plan policies seek to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 314.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director: Planning and Implementation, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officers’ presentation a discussion ensued. Councillor V J Bell commented on the application and proposed that it be approved as per Officers’ recommendation. This proposal was duly seconded.

Councillor J Driver declared an interest in this application as he, along with his wife, used the gym at the leisure centre on a regular basis.

A debate ensued. There was some discussion regarding the proposed glazed openings and it was clarified that they would be made from transparent glass to create a view in and out of the gym space. In response to queries regarding whether two-way or alternative glazing could be requested, Members were advised that this could be conditioned if they were mindful. The Head of Development Management and Building Control explained that from a planning perspective the opening was the main matter for consideration, as there was no impact on the community a decision to change any glazing wouldn’t be considered material.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the internal alterations could be carried out without planning permission and had been included for completeness, this also applied to the photovoltaic panels.

In response to reference to the Leisure Contract, the Director of Legal and Governance advised that this was not a planning issue and therefore not relevant or for discussion in relation to this application.

Councillor E L Stephens felt that the glazing should not be two-way glass and proposed an amendment to the proposal that an additional condition regarding the glazing be included. This proposal was duly seconded.

Councillor A S Fluker spoke regarding the glazing and whether Places Leisure should be given opportunity to review this and come back to the Committee. He proposed that the application be deferred to allow Places Leisure to consider the comments regarding the glazing and come back to the Committee. This proposal was duly seconded. The Chairperson put this to the Committee however the deferral was not agreed.

The Chairperson then moved the proposal in the name of Councillor Stephens to include a condition regarding the glazing. Following further debate, a vote was taken and the Chairperson declared that the motion was lost.

The Chairperson then referred to the proposal in the name of Councillor Bell, to accept the Officers’ recommendation of approval, and put this to the Committee.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 315.