Agenda item

Demolition of former care home and erection of 25 no. dwellings

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the demolition of former care home and erection of 25no. dwellings at East Green Care Home, 3 East Green, West Auckland (for copy see file of minutes).

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial view of the site, various photographs of the site and proposed site plan.

The Planning Officer confirmed that since the report had been published a letter had been received from the owner of Old Church Manor, which outlined concerns regarding access to his property and loss of light.  He had also raised questions regarding the relocation of sewers, of which the Planning Officer confirmed would be at no cost to residents.

Mr J Jones, local resident and owner of the neighbouring property confirmed that he had purchased and refurbished a derelict church and was concerned that he would be unable to access to the rear of his property for maintenance, should the proposal be approved.  He confirmed that originally the application included the erection of a fence against the wall of his property which would have prevented him from doing any maintenance work to the rear.  He welcomed the development but did not feel that the 1m gap between his property and the fence of the proposed neighbouring properties was sufficient.

Mr Jones confirmed that his property was too high to use a ladder and would therefore require the erection of scaffolding, which the proposed distance would not allow.  He considered a gap of 1.5m to be the minimum required to access and maintain Old Church Manor.

In addition, Mr Jones believed that the owner of the property currently adjoined to the care home had concerns regarding the demolition of the building as it was attached to his gable end.   Finally, he confirmed that there had been a lot of vandalism in the area including his own property which had required him to secure it, therefore he was in favour of development.  He did however reiterate the requirement for sufficient access to maintain his property.

Mr S Bell, spoken in support on behalf of the Applicant and confirmed that Mr Jones’ initial concerns had been responded to following the original proposed layout and the fence had been moved away from his property.  The Applicant was willing to negotiate with Mr Jones and promised permanent access rights for maintenance.

With regards to the issue regarding drainage, this would be dealt with via a condition and finally, the issue with regards to the adjoining property was a separate matter which would require a structural assessment and consultation with the owner.

Mr Bell confirmed that the scheme would reuse a brownfield site, address the need for affordable housing, and vastly improve the visual impact of the site, whilst providing offsite contributions for open space.

Councillor Nicholson welcomed the resolution to allow Mr Jones access to his property and invited the Committee to debate the application.

Councillor Clare considered whether the promise of access to Old Church Manor was sufficient for Mr Jones and agreed that a separation distance of 1m may not be enough to erect scaffolding. He considered the request for an additional 0.5m to be reasonable.

Councillor Atkinson queried whether the right of access would be dealt with by a covenant or whether it would be an agreement between the Applicant and the current owners only.

The Solicitor - Planning and Development, confirmed that the issue of access to Old Church Manor was a private matter and not normally a consideration for the Committee, unless they considered it had a negative impact upon amenity.

Councillor Patterson confirmed that there was provision within the law to allow access to maintain property and considered that the separation distance was sufficient to allow maintenance of Old Church Manor.  She considered that redevelopment of the site was crucial in the prevention of antisocial behaviour and moved the recommendation to approve.

Councillor Richardson confirmed that he was on the Committee which granted previous approval of 10 houses and although there had been no requirement for a site visit, he had visited the site.  He queried whether a footpath which ran through the site would be retained.  The Planning Officer confirmed that a footpath which joined Arnold Street and Station Road would be diverted accordingly.

Councillor Atkinson seconded the recommendation to approve and it was;

Resolved:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation to secure the retention of 3 no. affordable units in perpetuity and the agreed financial contribution of £51,425 for open space provision, and subject to the conditions as outlined in the report.