Agenda item

New care facility comprising of 10no. 2 Bed apartments with associated amenities (C2) (amended plans received 10/07/2017)

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for a new care facility comprising 10no. two bed apartments with associated amenities at the site of the former Dene Valley Primary School, Gurney Valley, Close House, Bishop Auckland (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, photographs of the site and aerial photography. The proposals included 10 assisted living units in two blocks and would include a lounge, day room and shared areas. The site access had been moved away from the neighbouring property who had objected to the proposals.

The Committee then heard representations from the objector who occupied the only property adjacent to the former school site.

The objector informed the Committee that he was the only resident affected by the proposal. The objector referred to a copy of the sales restrictions given to any developer which included a number of proposals and explained the background.

Notices were sent to the six nearest local residents. No notice was placed on the noticeboard outside the land.  The objector expressed concern that the County County had to be pressurised to arrange a wildlife survey, which was conducted in the middle of December.

The objector also expressed concerns regarding land levels and how this would affect his privacy as the proposed properties would be higher than his own property.  The one and only bedroom of the objectors property was next to the planned new entrance.

The objector also raised his concerns regarding highways issues, namely that the new entrance to the land would be at the foot of a hill with a blind summit.  Vehicular access would be constant with deliveries, visitors and changing of shift patterns. The objector felt that the inclusion of a bike shelter was fanciful given that the lanes were too dangerous.

The objector explained that the carbon footprint of the proposal was a minimum of 300% greater than if it were within a larger town boundary.

The objector considered that the amended application did not address any of the concerns he had raised previously and would not prove beneficial for future residents or the local population.  The objector noted that there were no statements from community analysts showing benefits for residents or the local community, no reports on the ecological effects on wildlife, no statements from any experts within the field of care for the people that would reside at the location and no statements as to how it would benefit the local population.  The objector explained that the residential development should fulfil all the criteria for sustainability and felt that the application before the Committee did not show any evidence of these factors and should be refused.

In response to the objector’s statement, the Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the application had been subject to tree surveys and Tree Preservation plans to safeguard trees to the North of the site. There was a change in land levels and this was catered for by way of a condition. The objection regarding the proximity of the access road to the adjacent dwelling could not be sustained on the basis that the site was next to the C129 and refusal could not be justified on those grounds. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the inclusion of a cycle shelter was merely a sustainable offer.

In response to a question from Councillor J Atkinson regarding the benefits of the proposal the Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the development would increase the choice of housing for people with autism on a formerly developed site. The site had stood empty since the 1990’s and the development would be beneficial to the character and appearance of the area. Other matters raised could be controlled by planning conditions.

Councillor L Brown queried the lack of a response from Children and Young People’s Services and explained that she had experience of working with children with autism and queried if the development was in the correct place.

With the consent of the Chairman, the Committee then heard from the Developer who explained that representatives from Durham County Council had approached them for suitable housing which needed to located in a quiet rural setting.

Councillor L Brown queried if phase two of the development proceeded, how the associated disruption and noise would affect those individuals already in residence.  The developer explained that the idea was to have more units, however, it was uncertain at the present time whether the level of capacity a second phase of development would bring, would be required.

The Chairman informed the Committee that Phase 2 would be considered by way of a separate planning application at the relevant time.

Councillor C Martin considered that there was a lack of this housing type within the County and fully appreciated the concerns the local resident had raised. A development for housing with families would have had more of a detrimental effect on the resident. Councillor Martin felt there was no better way to use the former school site and moved the recommendation.

Councillor J Clare agreed with Councillor Martin and appreciated that people who suffered from autism were very easily disturbed by sensory stimuli. People with autism required a quiet environment, where they were looked after and cared for. Councillor Clare seconded the recommendation.

Upon a vote being take it was:

Resolved

That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.