Drive-through restaurant and 5 retail units to be built at Spennymoor

2
Skip to next photo
1/1
Show caption
1/1
This article is brought to you by our exclusive subscriber partnership with our sister title USA Today, and has been written by our American colleagues. It does not necessarily reflect the view of The Herald.

A drive-through restaurant and five retail units will be built at a busy County Durham interchange after the Government overruled a council’s refusal. 

The proposal at Thinford Park, near Spennymoor, is part of a planned expansion of the site at the intersection of the A167 and A688, which is currently home to drive-through restaurants from Costa and Burger King alongside Domino’s and One Gym. 

No Ordinary Estates, the applicant, said the new units would generate investment and provide several new jobs. The proposal was initially recommended for approval by planning officers at Durham County Council. 

But concerned planning committee members voted against it earlier this year over fears of the potential negative impact on the nearby town centre. 

The applicant said potential sites at Festival Walk, near Spennymoor library and at Durham Gate were reviewed but not suitable. 

In their decision, the Planning Inspector ruled the proposal “would not result in unacceptable harm to the vitality and viability of Spennymoor Town Centre”.

The Thinford site has been subjected to long-running planning delays and changes. Travelodge was expected to open a new hotel before plans fell through several years ago. Part of the building is now set to be used as offices.

A separate application for costs from Durham County Council for the initial planning refusal was not supported by the Planning Inspectorate. 

No Ordinary Estates previously complained that the local authority had  “acted unreasonably” in refusing the plans, but the council said the decision taken by committee members was a reasonable exercise of planning judgment.

The Planning Inspectorate ruling added: “Whilst I sympathise with the applicant due to the decision being contrary to that of the council’s planning officer recommendation, I am satisfied that the council has not behaved unreasonably in concluding in the way it has through the council’s planning committee exercising its planning function.”

Get involved
with the news

Send your news & photos