Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 49 dwellings

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application to demolish existing buildings and the erection of 49 dwellings (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Mr E Alder of Gleeson Homes, the Applicant addressed the Committee. He provided background to the company which predominantly developed on brownfield sites in difficult locations and provided low-cost accommodation. The company also offered employment opportunities and apprenticeships to local people.

The developer had worked with Planning Officers for over 18 months and had revised the scheme considerably in response to comments. It would be unviable to make any further amendments.

Despite the poor market conditions in the area and that the site had been identified as unsuitable for housing within the SHLAA, he understood that a proposal for executive homes would be preferred by the Local Planning Authority. This was in direct conflict with the aims of Gleeson Homes. The developer had come forward with a scheme that it felt would succeed in the current market.

The landowner, the Homes and Communities Agency had invested heavily in funding affordable housing in Durham. The receipt from the sale of the land could be put into further funding for affordable homes in the County. The site currently cost the HCA £30k per year to maintain.

In terms of sustainability, the site was a one minute walk from the A690 where a bus service operated every 20 minutes. Refurbishment of existing buildings was not practical as the cost of asbestos removal would make this unviable.

Concern had been expressed about the proximity of houses to the trees around the site perimeter. Mr Alder advised that properties would be separated from the trees by the rear gardens and concerns that construction may cause damage to roots could be overcome.

In terms of design, the dwellings would be constructed using red brick, in line with existing buildings. The development would be less visually intrusive from the main road than the former hospital.

Only four letters of objection had been received and the Highways Authority had offered no objections.

In conclusion, Mr Alder urged Members to approve this application on a brownfield site and referred to the offer of a S106 Agreement for the provision/maintenance of open space in the locality. The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that no reference had been made to such an obligation in the scheme submitted by the developer.

Members felt that the inclusion of a Section 106 Agreement was integral to their determination of the application. C Cuskin, Solicitor (Planning and Development), advised that, if Members were minded to approve the application, this could be subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision/maintenance of open space in the locality.

Members proceeded to determine the application. Councillor Patterson stated that as local Member an application to develop a suitable scheme on this site would be welcomed as it had stood undeveloped for years. Having listened to the submissions made by the developer and having taken into account the views and concerns of Planning Officers and consultees, she agreed with the recommendation that the application should be refused, for the reasons detailed in the report. The scheme was not in keeping with the design and character of the site’s surroundings.

R Lowe, Senior Tree Officer was asked to respond to the comments made about the trees. He advised that the applicant had spoken about the character of the site, yet all that would remain following the demolition of the buildings were the trees. The current buildings were predominantly located in the middle of the site but the scheme proposed the erection of dwellings around the perimeter. He questioned whether potential purchasers would wish to live in such close proximity to mature trees which were protected. 

Councillor Buckham expressed concern about the lack of affordable housing provision although noted that the developer offered schemes to enable people to purchase their homes. He was also concerned about the absence of a Section 106 Agreement.

Councillor Clare stated that whilst he appreciated the submissions made by the applicant in his presentation, he was convinced by the reasons for refusal of the application.      

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.