Agenda item

Demolition of care home and erection of 19 dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer, Barry Gavillet gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, copies of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The application was for demolition of care home and erection of 19 dwellings and was recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions. 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the care home had not been occupied for a number of years and the site had become derelict and overgrown.  Members noted the location, close to Grants Houses, and the existing access to the site from the main road which the Highways Section had deemed acceptable for a development of 19 houses.

The Committee noted that the site was brownfield in nature and within the settlement boundary and satisfied sustainable development due to the close proximity to both Easington and Grants Houses.  It was explained that the majority of the trees on the site would be retained, with the 8 that are to be removed described by the Tree Officer as dead, dying or diseased.  It was added that 2 of the 19 properties would be affordable housing and there would be a financial contribution in terms of play space. 

The Committee noted that there had been no objections from the statutory or internal consultees on the application, subject to conditions.  It was added there had been a suggestion from the applicant, based upon comments from the Ecology Section, that a contribution be made towards the provision and upgrading of footpaths at the former Easington Colliery pit site, to take pressure away from coastal designation of significant importance.

The Senior Planning Officer noted there had been 1 letter of objection received from a nearby resident, with a summary set out within the report.  The Senior Planning Officer concluded by noting the application was acceptable in planning terms and was therefore recommended for approval.

The Chairman noted there were no registered Speakers and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor A Hopgood noted that the development seemed to be very good and supported the Officer’s recommendation.  Councillor A Bell noted that greater affordable housing provision would have been better.

Councillor A Hopgood moved that the application be approved; she was seconded by Councillor J Alvey.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the Section 106 Agreement and conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.