Agenda item

8 No. Dwellings (Resubmission).

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer (Easington Area Office) which recommended the application for refusal. The Principal Planning Officer explained that Members had visited the site that day, and gave a detailed presentation on the main issues outlined in the report and sought members approval to amend the refusal reason which was agreed.

Councillor Todd the Divisional Ward Member was unable to attend the meeting so he submitted a letter in support of the proposed development which was read out by the Principal Planning Officer and circulated to members at the meeting.

He supported the application primarily on the current state of the vacant site which was previously a Miner’s Hostel and had been in derelict condition for some time and that the proposed development would tidy up what was an extremely unsightly area which lay at one of the main entrances to Shotton Colliery. The application was for a small number of properties that should not have any real significant impact on housing provision itself, but would undoubtedly tidy up the site. Although the site was outside the settlement boundary, properties did lie to the north of the proposed development.

Mr W Scorer speaking in support of the application gave a powerpoint presentation and indicated that they were a specialised company that dealt with difficult sites and that they had a proven track record of success.

The site in question was previously terraced housing and the site of the former Aged Miners Hostel. He also indicated that Shotton extended beyond the line and that foundations could be clearly seen on the site, therefore the site was brownfield.

The policy reasons for refusal were based on the District of Easington Local Plan 2001 which was out of date and the County Durham Plan which had not yet been agreed.

He referred to the need to deliver new homes in an area starved of new property development. He went on to say that a dangerous structure had been demolished on the site to resolve a long standing problem. He also referred to the fact that they had withdrawn the original application and that they were never advised that the scheme would not receive support and that it would be refused on policy grounds.

He indicated that the development would provide benefits to Shotton with low cost housing to retain local people in a village which would give local people an opportunity to invest in their local community as well as supporting local services and local labour involved in the building process and asked that the application be approved.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Developers track record had no bearing on the consideration of the current proposal. The most recent demolition took place in 2006 and that the policies were old but were still relevant and part of the up to date development plan. He was not aware that the Council encouraged the developers and that discussions were underway before the building was demolished. The site was now considered as a new build.

Councillor Boyes indicated that he did not agree with developing outside the settlement boundary but this site was unsightly and proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Charlton indicated that the site had been previously used as a living area and that there was currently an occupied caravan on site and seconded that the application be approved.

Members agreed unanimously to grant delegated powers to the Principal Planning Officer to determine the conditions to be attached.

Resolved: That the application be APPROVED subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and the Principal Planning Officer be authorised to formulate those conditions.

Reasons for Decision: The area had previously been a living area and there was an occupied caravan currently on the site. The site was brownfield reasonably close to Shotton and the development would tidy up an unsightly area. It was therefore considered that the benefits of the development would outweigh any planning harm arising from the conflict with policy.