Agenda item

Two apartment blocks consisting of 12 one bed units.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the development of two apartment blocks consisting of 12 one bed units at land to the east of Lidl, Littleburn Lane, Langley Moor, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members were advised that since the report had been published the Sustainability Officer had responded to the consultation  on the application. The only comment was that a standard condition relating to renewable energy would be required, Members were advised that such a condition was already attached to the report.

Ms Maureen Stansfield, Commissioning Services Manager with Durham County Council, addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application. Members were advised that she and her team were extremely passionate about the scheme. There was a real need for good quality local housing tailored to meet the needs of service users with sensory loss. Locally there were insufficient facilities and as such service users were forced to relocate to the South, whereby doing so came at a great cost.

Ms Stansfield advised that the delivery of one bedroom units met perfectly with local need and the area for the scheme was particularly suitable as it would be located on flat land with extremely good access to the city centre. Members were advised that in sensory terms the scheme was generating much interest on a national level.

Ms Stansfied did express concerns regarding the s106 contribution which the developer was required to make. She felt that the developer was being penalised and highlighted that the scheme did incorporate open space within the development in the form of a sensory garden.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that a sensory garden was not part of the scheme put forward and the Applicant was invited to highlight on the plan the location of the proposed sensory garden within the application site but was unable to do so.

In response to the concerns raised, the Solicitor clarified that Policy R2 of the Saved Local Plan required developments that proposed 10 or more dwellings to incorporate open space within the development. Should that not be possible then the developer would be required to enter into an agreement to provide a financial sum in lieu of those facilities.

The plans which had been submitted by the developer had not indicated that open space would be incorporated on the site as such a s106 Obligation would be  required. The financial sum had been agreed at £12,000 which represented £1000 per unit to be developed.

The Solicitor advised that there could sometimes be other considerations which applied and could be sufficient to override the requirement for a contribution to be made, but the developer had not put forward any such considerations with the application.

Mr G Rae, applicant, advised that the s106 had been questioned from the very start of the application process and that a viability statement had been submitted.

Further to a suggestion from a Member to defer the application in order for the full facts to be received, Ms M Stansfield urged the Committee to refrain from deferral as the proposals had taken 2 years to develop and there were 25 people desperate for such accommodation.

Several Members voiced their support of the current application and it was stated that the s106 was appropriate as previously there had been allotments on that site which the community had since lost.

Seconded by Councillor Lethbridge, Councillor Laing moved approval of the application.

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement and the conditions detailed within the report.