Plans to build a bungalow on a former kennel site in a County Durham village have been refused by the council.

The proposal, put forward by Mr Darran Green, involved demolishing the existing kennels at the back of Johnsons Buildings, Iveston Lane, Durham, and constructing a three-bedroom dormer bungalow.

However, the council refused the application on November 4, citing non-compliance with the County Durham Plan (CDP) policies.

The application site, covering 664 square metres, is currently used as a kennel and access road.

Mr Green proposed increasing parking from two to four spaces, with the bungalow to be constructed using brickwork for the walls, artificial slate for the roof, and lead cladding for dormer windows.

The planning statement for the proposal argued that prior approvals for nearby dwellings set a precedent for development in semi-rural locations.

Highways initially raised concerns about safety due to the access point onto a high-speed road, but later conditionally accepted the proposal following data provided by the applicant's consultant.

Most read

Get the latest news, sports, and entertainment delivered straight to your device by subscribing to The Northern Echo here - now only £2 for 2 months!

However, the council found that the application conflicted with CDP policies.

The site was not considered "well-related" to the village, being visually and physically isolated, which was deemed a violation of backland development principles.

Durham County Council also highlighted that without special justification, new residential development in the countryside, as proposed, is generally unsupported.

The design and materials of the proposed bungalow were also deemed incompatible with the surrounding rural vernacular, contrasting with nearby historic buildings.

No objections or support were received from neighbours during the public consultation.

The council's decision notice highlighted inappropriate backland development and a lack of integration with the built-up settlement of Iveston as reasons for refusal.

The proposed design was also criticised for not reflecting the local character.

Mr Green has the right to appeal against the decision within six months.