Agenda item

Residential Development Comprising 43 No. Dwellings

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer (Easington Area Office) which recommended 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.

Councillor Boyes explained that he welcomed the application for the redevelopment of the Club site but had concerns with the extent of the development.  The proposals were well outside the settlement boundary of Easington Village and encroached significantly into Greenfield land.  He referred to Policies 3 and 67 and explained that there was numerous land available for development within the settlement boundary.

Concern had also been raised regarding the viability of the scheme.  It was felt that 100% affordable housing may not be achieved.  The most suitable land was the former Council Offices and development elsewhere, outside the settlement boundary could jeopardise sites within it.

Mr Mann, the applicant explained that he was the Director of Canal Homes who had acquired the site.  The site was clearly identified by Durham County Council as a ‘green’ site within the SHLAA which had a traffic light system, red, amber and green.  He would not have submitted an application if he had known that the site could not be developed.

Mr Mann had been working in Easington for 10 year and he was the first landlord on the Accreditation Scheme in 2003.  Easington was desperate for investment, the site was immediately available and would create jobs locally through construction.  The former Council Offices was not immediately available and the development would create the needed demand in the shops in Seaside Lane.  The people of Easington were supportive of the scheme which was sustainable.  The problems with drainage had been dealt with and he would make sure the necessary arrangements were in place.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the SHLAA had been prepared by Policy Officers which identified future housing sites.  There was a traffic light system but it did not mean that ‘green’ sites would be approved.   There was concern that if the application was approved, it would undermine other brownfield sites.  The Council Offices site was not being specifically protected, it was brownfield and within the settlement boundary.

Members commented that they were aware that the SHLAA identified potential development sites.

The Principal Planning Officer (Durham City Area) explained that the Local Development Framework and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was being prepared which planned up until 2030.  Developers were being invited to put potential sites forward which would be assessed but not necessarily become available.  ‘Green’ in the SHLAA was only an indication that the site could be brought forward for development within 5 years.  The Club site could potentially be allocated for development but under the current Local Plan it was not.

Members commented that there were brownfield sites available for development within the settlement boundary.

RESOLVED that the application be refused subject to the reasons outlined in the report.