Agenda item

Erection of 50 No. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom two storey dwellings with associated works.

The Planning Team Leader (Central and East) gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy 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 erection of 50 no. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom two storey dwellings with associated works and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.  The Planning Team Leader (Central and East) explained that the application was now for 49 dwellings and also there was an update in terms of the figures set out in the recommendations on page 114 of the report such that £12,500 would be for ecology and £24,500 for play facilities.

It was explained that the site was a former adult learning centre and there was not affordable housing provision, with the developer noting lack of viability and evidence supplied to Planning having been noted as being satisfactory.  Members noted the proximity of the site to the Walkers Crisp Factory and noted the site was also near to the large site at Lowhills Road with proposals for 900 properties in total, 300 of which had approval.  It was added the site was brownfield, having already been cleared and the trees on the boundary of the site would be retained.  It was noted the main point of access would be from the north, Essington Way.

The Planning Team Leader (Central and East) noted that there had been 1 representation as regards concerns regarding wildlife at the site; this concern was not shared by the Council’s Ecology Section.  It was noted that Business Durham had asked as regards how the development would relate to the Walkers site and it was explained the change of 50 to 49 properties had looked to address this with a little offset and some acoustic measures would also be put in place, with no objections from Environmental Health.

It was explained that the site was sustainable and while the site was listed as employment land within the Easington Local Plan, the use as an adult learning centre had not been employment use and the application was deemed acceptable.

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

Councillor H Bennett noted that there had not been discussions with Local Members in respect of this application.

Councillor A Bell noted he supported the scheme and recommended the approval in line with the Officer’s report.

Councillor J Lethbridge supported the application and asked whether the name could be retained within the development, given the strong political implications.

The Planning Team Leader (Central and East) explained that the naming was beyond the scope of planning; however the street naming team would be the appropriate section to speak to.  It was added that as the site was not one identified from the Local Plan and therefore not one where formal consultation would take place, as it was a Durham County Council asset that had been disposed of it would have been dealt with in that capacity by the Council’s Asset Management section.

Councillor A Bell moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor J Lethbridge.

RESOLVED

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