Agenda item

Demolition of former school buildings.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of former school premises at Seaside Lane, Easington Colliery (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Team Leader (Central and East) provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor D Boyes, local Member addressed the Committee on behalf of his colleague Councillor Surtees, the Parish Council and for 1800 people who had signed a petition and submitted letters in support of the demolition of the buildings.

Local residents remembered the school with fondness but it had had its day. Not one person considered that it should stay and there was an over-riding feeling that that Easington Colliery could not move forward with the regeneration of the area without the demolition of the buildings.

The NPPF stated that planning consent should be refused unless it could be demonstrated that the public benefits outweighed the harm or loss. Residents believed that the public benefits outweighed the merits of keeping the buildings and he asked Members to consider how they would feel if the buildings were within their own divisions.

The buildings had been called the ‘biggest eyesore in the North East’, the site had not been marketed properly since 1997, primarily because of the age of the building and attempts to secure grant-aid had failed. Any business would want modern, fit for purpose premises. It had also been impossible to find community groups to occupy the premises as there was already an abundance of other facilities in the area and because of the state of the buildings. All options had been explored without success.

Unfortunately the applicant was not able to be present but wished to consult with the community about future usage. If members were minded to approve the application he asked that a condition be included requiring any works to be carried out within one year.

The local Member concluded that if the application was refused residents would be condemned to continue living next to dilapidated buildings, and the ongoing regeneration of the area would be affected.

Members discussed the application at length.

Councillor Laing had noted on the site visit that the building housed a flock of pigeons and she discussed the potential health hazards of this. She stated that health risks were often exaggerated but such a large population of birds may present a risk of disease to residents living close to the site. The Member had research information about the health risks they posed which she shared with the Committee.

The Member also referred to the applicant’s heritage statement which described the former school as the most important group of historic buildings associated with Easington Colliery, creating an architecturally positive impact on the local landscape buildings, and that Conservation Officers considered that they had evidential, historic, aesthetic and communal value in accordance with Historic England Conservation Principles. However key to this was the acknowledgement that the ongoing dilapidation through redundancy had resulted in the concerns of the public that the buildings were an eyesore.

Following a request for clarification from Councillor Kay, the Solicitor - Planning and Development advised that Listed Building Consent was sought for the demolition of the Grade II Listed former school buildings, and Members should consider the heritage impact of this.

Councillor Kay continued that the building could not be considered attractive. He believed that the value to the community of Easington Colliery far outweighed the loss of the buildings through demolition. The buildings had been empty since 1997 and whilst Historic England and the Victorian Society had offered objections he believed that they were without substance. There had been no interest in the buildings and he was aware of a similar application in Durham where a listed building had been demolished to create an Accident and Emergency Department. He therefore moved that the application be approved as the community and economic benefits to Easington Colliery far outweighed the loss of an eyesore.

Councillor Bleasdale believed that the people of Easington Colliery deserved better than for these dilapidated buildings to remain standing. Since the school had become unoccupied the site had become dirty and littered, with trees growing across the land. Residents did not deserve to view these buildings every day.

In noting the strong objections from Historic England and the Victorian Society Councillor Conway was concerned that they were not in attendance. Whilst in its day the school was of architectural significance, there were numerous examples in County Durham of sites that had been adapted for other uses. This site had not. Reference had been made to the tests in paragraph 133 of the NPPF, as outlined in paragraphs 33 and 34 in the report. In his opinion it could not be denied that the buildings were preventing all reasonable uses of the site.  In the 18 years since occupation of the buildings, a number of organisations had tried to find a use for the premises but without success. Measures had been taken by previous owners to attempt to secure grant aid which had failed. The Committee had heard from the objectors that marketing opportunities had also failed. Given the numerous examples of this kind, any loss was outweighed by bringing the site back into use. One of the tests was that no viable use of the heritage asset itself could be found in the medium term; 18 years could be described as medium to long term.

He considered that clearing and greening the site would be a significant improvement and may bring it back into use in the future. If Members were minded to approve the application he asked if a condition could be included which would require the demolition and clearing/greening of the site within 12 months.

Councillor Tinsley stated that careful consideration should be given to the demolition of such sites whenever there were objections from Historic England and the Victorian Society, however in this case as the buildings had been empty for 18 years without any proposed uses coming forward it was unlikely that any would be identified in the future. The applicant had not submitted any proposals for the site or provided marketing material and he was concerned that if the application was approved and referred to the Secretary of State a Planning Inspector would not have enough information to appreciate the context of the buildings in the area. It was therefore critical that this information be provided by the applicant if the application later went to Public Inquiry. Easington Colliery was in need of regeneration and the regeneration of this site was critical to this, and he therefore supported demolition of the buildings.

Councillor Lethbridge stated that the building must have been a proud possession of Easington Colliery and was a piece of history but he fervently supported the speech made by the local Member. This was about reclaiming the site; trees were growing up through the former playground and the whole site was derelict. He did not accept the comments in the report that demolition would result in an irreplaceable loss of a national important Grade II Listed Building. Demolition would not constitute a loss but would be a gain for the community. He also asked if this building was in Durham City whether there would be a similar debate.

Councillor Shaw commented that in his own community 7 schools built in the same period had been demolished and this had led to the provision of other facilities for the benefit of the community. Residents of Easington Colliery did not deserve anything less than this.

Councillor Dearden was of the view that in examining the application, Members needed to look at the value of the buildings against the value of the demolition to the community. Value was diminishing as time progressed and opportunities for the buildings to be reclaimed as a Heritage Asset were reducing as time progressed.

The Team Leader referred Members to a detailed letter from Historic England which set out their concerns and explained what was required of the applicant to be able to support demolition. The applicant had not provided any evidence with regard to marketing or evidence that grant funding had been applied for.

To assist Members the Solicitor - Planning and Development explained that paragraph 133 of the NPPF applied tests in respect of the loss of a designated Heritage Asset. Planning consent should be refused where a proposed development would lead to substantial harm or loss of significance unless substantial harm or loss was necessary to achieve substantial public benefits, or any or all of the four tests referred to in paragraph 10 of the report applied.

Councillor Clark advised that there were substantial levels of COPD in Easington Colliery and noted Councillor Laing’s comments about the potential health risks caused by the pigeons. She also noted that there had been no objection to the demolition of the public house situated nearby. The Victorian Society had objected but had not come to the meeting to promote the value of the building, nor was the former school visited by tourists. Demolition of the buildings would meet tests in paragraph 133 of the NPPF.  The loss of the buildings would benefit the community and the mental well-being of residents, even if the site was just greened over and not used.

In concurring with the views of other Members, Councillor Davinson stated that if the application was approved, the applicant should be required to provide a timescale for demolition of the buildings and provide evidence of marketing. Following a suggestion from the Member that the application be deferred to allow the applicant to produce evidence of marketing to strengthen the case for demolition following referral to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor advised that unless they felt that there was not enough information to enable the Committee to reach a decision, Members should consider if either of the tests in paragraph 133 of the NPPF had been satisfied.  

Councillor Tinsley made the point that if the decision was approved and the matter went to Public Inquiry this would give the applicant sufficient time to prepare evidence.

A motion to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Kay and seconded by Councillor Conway. There was no motion to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Members considered that the tests in paragraph 133 of the NPPF would be met and the substantial public benefits achieved through demolition of the buildings would outweigh the harm or loss of the designated heritage asset. If approved the proposals would promote the regeneration of Easington Colliery and would improve the visual amenity of local residents by the removal of a dilapidated and overbearing building.

Councillor Tinsley suggested that a further reason for refusal of the application was crime and the fear of crime as the building was subject to vandalism and anti-social behaviour.

Some Members had also referred to health impacts but on advice from the Solicitor, it was acknowledged that there may be insufficient evidence to sustain this as a reason for refusal.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

(i)            That the application be approved for the following reasons, and referred to the Secretary of State for determination:-

Approved unanimously because, although having special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, the Committee was satisfied that the loss of the building was necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh its loss, namely: promoting the regeneration of Easington, making the site more attractive for development and the potential for economic benefit, fear of crime at the continued presence of existing dilapidated buildings, public health concern and improvement to visual amenity through the removal of dilapidated buildings that dominate the streetscape.

(ii)          Subject to conditions for 1 year time limit, bat mitigation, site restoration, accordance with approved plans and archaeological recording of the building.