Gainford & Langton
MINUTES OF SPECIAL PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 31 MARCH 2015
PRESENT:
COUNCILLORS: Cllr A. Mackay (Chair)Cllr S. Platten
Cllr A. SmithCllr R. Roff
Cllr M. Charge Cllr N. Russell
Cllr S. HannanCllr L. Johnstone
Visitors: R Connor (Teesdale Mercury)
9 residents
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE:
Apologies were tendered and approved for Cllr Dennis (work)
2. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS:
Cllr’s Platten, Roff and Hannan declared they were statutory consultees due to their home addresses
3. PLANNING APPLICATION – ST PETER’S, GAINFORD:
Application DM/15/00730/FPA Site of former St Peter’s School, Main Road, Gainford – Part conversion and demolition of existing school to 6 apartments and erection of 20 dwellings and associated infrastructure.
The Chair summarised the St Peter’s issues with a brief overview of the history of planning consultations by Ruttle Plant and Kebble Homes (owners of St Peter’s)
The parish council have endeavoured to get Ruttle and Kebble to work together to developed the site considered a blight on the landscape.
Before comments from members the Clerk read out a statement received from Kebble Homes regarding this proposal (Annex A)
The Clerk also informed the meeting that three comments/objections had been submitted by Durham County Council – Design and Conservation, Landscape and Sustainability sections.
188
Signed…………………… Dated……………..
Main points of the discussion:
- The documents submitted have quoted the parish council of having approved the plans. This is incorrect; the council did not approve anything at the September 2014 meeting with Ruttle Plant representatives
- Proposed plans produced in September2014 showed smaller housing units and it was indicated that developing the Eastern area meant they could build affordable housing.
- Ruttle have used current planning regulations/policies (Affordable Housing Statement) to avoid putting forward affordable houses on this proposal. 3 and 4 bedroom houses are not necessarily what the village wants
- Residents indicated a desire for property for the elderly/retired
- Doesn’t make sense to develop half the site
- Only developing the East extension to make it a commercial enterprise
- If the Eastern extension gave affordable housing I would be happier (Cllr Platten)
- It is an unbalanced submission
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
- Objects to the loss of commercial land and potential employment with it
- No affordable housing on the proposal
- Extending the conservation area protects the Eastern side of Gainford from development. This proposal is a long way from doing that
- No planning justification to go East in planning terms
- Designs are very poor – negative impact on the local landscape
- The proposal is a poor gateway to the village
- Parking spaces may be within regulations but if cars begin to park on the road it could cause problems with the access needed to the treatment works
- They state it’s a poorly maintained site – they are the ones that have allowed that
The Chair thanked people for attended and sharing their views.
It was agreed the council would submit a full commentary to the DurhamCounty planners covering the points from raised by Councillors and the public.
5. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING:
Monday 13 April 2015. Village Hall (Upstairs committee room)
189
Signed...... Dated......
Annex A
Kebbell Homes have consistently made clear their wish to work
with the local community and the planning authority, and to collaborate with Ruttle Plant Holdings with the aim of securing a long term, sustainable proposal for the site of the former St Peter's School.
The previous planning designation of the land as a site for reemployment has served to demonstrate that such uses are most unlikely to be practical or viable, and appears to have
helped to reach a general consensus that an appropriate amount and form of residential development represents the only realistic alternative use.
The extensive public consultation that we at Kebbell Homes has carried out thus far has revealed strong support for residential use of the site, and for the development of comprehensive proposals for its development.
Following the extension of the Conservation Area to include the site, and thereby confirm it to be within the village envelope, Kebbell Homes has also recognised the aim of substantially retaining the existing buildings and securing an appropriate use for them, notwithstanding that this will necessarily require cross subsidy from
enabling development on the remainder of the site.
Consistent with this approach, Kebbell Homes submitted a detailed pre application Inquiry to the Local planning Authority in 2014, setting out proposals for mixed tenure residential development that would provide the varied range of housing needed to foster an inclusive community.
It is regrettable that subsequent discussion and development of these proposals with the Planning Authority, the Local Community and Ruttle Plant holdings was both complicated and frustrated by the re-designation of the Flood Zone from the River Tees, which led the Planning authority to suggest that the site was not suitable for development.
Responding positively and proactively, Kebbell Homes commissioned specialist consultants to examine the Environment Agency’s flood projections and, following dialogue with the Agency, JBA Consulting have obtained formal confirmation within the past few weeks that the site is located within Flood Zone 1 where there are no restrictions on development.
This has enabled Kebbell Homes to revive their proposals for the comprehensive development of the site and, following an approach from Broadacres Housing Association, we are currently exploring the potential to refurbish and convert the existing buildings to provide the specialist accommodation for older persons that was particularly supported by the Community during previous consultations.
We expect to conclude our discussions with Broadacres within
the next 2 to 4 weeks at which point we will be able to revert to the Planning Authority to conclude the dialogue regarding project viability that wasinitiated by their original Pre Application Submission and to discuss how best to take the project forward with Ruttle Plant Holdings.
In the meantime, we recognise that Ruttle Plant Holdings may wish to pursue their own planning application, either to establish an alternative option for their part of the site or to provide a basis for valuing their part of the site. However, Kebbell
Homes continue to consider that a comprehensive approach to the development ofthe site would be preferable, and remain willing to either work jointly with Ruttle Plant Holdings or to acquire their part of the site.
In particular, Kebbell Homes note that the Ruttle Plant Holdings proposals necessarily requires demolition of part of the larger of the two existing buildings and development on greenfield land beyond the village envelope in order to achieve the amount of new development necessary to enable the retention of the remaining building and we see this to be unnecessary given the alternative of development on our own part of the site.
It remains to be seen how the Planning Authority will
respond to the proposals from Ruttle Plant Holdings, but it would appear from the planning application form that there has not been any pre consultation dialogue with the Local Planning Authority and it is notable that the application necessary for the demolition of the existing building within the Conservation Area does not yet appear to have been submitted.