RESIDENTS in an upper dale village have raised concerns about proposals to convert a 19th property and workshop into a home.
Owner of Raby Estate, Lord Barnard, has submitted a planning application to Durham County Council to bring the disused Hearse House and adjacent workshop, in Newbiggin, back into use with a link between the two.
However, those living nearby fear the development could pose a “severe hazard to public safety” due to the vehicle access being on a “blind bend.”
The two-storey property on the B6277 was built in the mid 19th century and was originally used to house a hearse on the ground floor and a reading room above. The single-storey workshop is believed to have been used for making coffins as well as once being a blacksmith’s shop.
The grade II-listed building is located within a conservation area.
In a heritage statement by Gracey Architectural, it is stated that the buildings “have been derelict for a number of years and conservation of them cannot come too soon” .
Resident, John Lawson, has objected to the plans due to the poor access off the B6277.
Peter Humes, who lives nearby, is also against the proposals.
He wrote: “This road has a high concentration of fast moving vehicles of all types, including heavy goods vehicles. Over the past 17 years I have witnessed countless occasions where these HGVs have had head-on encounters whereby emergency stops were needed to prevent an accident.
“Vehicles emerging from the proposed property on this blind bend will severely increase the risk of an accident.”
Fellow Resident, Diana Lambourne, wrote: “To add another vehicular access at this section of the road would be extremely dangerous.”
Simon Oxley objected due to the access to the site. He has also requested clarification of ownership as he believes that while the blacksmith’s building behind the hearse house belongs to Raby Estate, the hearse house and the former reading rooms above belong to Newbiggin village.
As part of the application, it is proposed that a parking area for two cars would be surfaced in gravel.
Three self-seeded trees close to the buildings would also be removed.
This is because they “threaten” damage to the foundations, walling and roofs.
The workshop’s chimney stack would also be taken down and rebuilt with the same stone because it is in poor condition. An existing dry stone wall would be taken down and the stone used to build new boundary walls.
![A COUNTY councillor is backing a campaign to get a pedestrian crossing in Staindrop. Frustrated parish councillors in the village summoned their county council representative Cllr George Richardson to their latest meeting to discuss several issues, including the call for a safe way to cross the A688. Earlier this year their request for a crossing was turned down by the county council’s highways officers. Parish council chairman Jonothan Raper described the reasons for the refusal as “spurious” and called on Cllr Richardson to support their campaign. He added: “One of the arguments they made was there is no clear line of desire when they studied the village – well this isn’t a clear line of desire because there isn’t a crossing, people cross whenever they can. “When the lollipop person was there, one of the things I noticed was people would walk all the way down to the lollipop person to cross the road to go to the shop or to go to the school.” He added a problem of parking at the primary school is exacerbated because people are too afraid to walk their children across the road. Cllr Richardson said he had supported previous attempts for a crossing point with the first being made about 15 years ago. He added: “We went fairly well down the road with that and they looked into it. The only recommended place was where the bus stop is and to get the visibility splays, people on the other side of the road would lose their parking. “That didn’t go down well so it just died a death.” Cllr Raper said he suspected the real reason for the officers’ refusal was the cost of installing a crossing. He added that much of the cost could be recovered from savings made on not having to employ a lollipop patrol. Cllr Raper said: “A lollipop person only provides a benefit of crossing for three hours of the day. You are getting 21 extra hours of crossing time [with a pedestrian crossing].” Cllr Richardson said he would raise the issue with the county council’s cabinet member for highways, Cllr John Shuttleworth.](https://teesdalemercury.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/georgeR-120x86.jpg)
