Council set to approve affordable housing scheme in North Sunderland

Full planning permission is sought for nine affordable dwellings on land south west of St Cuthbert Close, Main Street, North Sunderland.

A previous application for 20 homes was refused last year, while outline permission for 20 homes on a larger area to the north east of the proposed new site has expired.

The application by Mrs S Carr And Mr W Dunn/Bernicia Homes is being recommended for approval by the North Northumberland Local Area Planning Committee which meets on Thursday.

The plan has received three letters of support and the backing of the parish council which ‘fully supports the provision of affordable housing in North Sunderland and Seahouses’.

However, nine letters of objection have been submitted with the Northumberland and Newcastle Society among those expressing concerns.

It states: ‘Whilst the Society would support any provision of affordable housing in a settlement so obviously and urgently in need of it, this is possibly the worst siting for it.

‘The application constitutes ribbon development on an important approach, reminiscent of the piecemeal but unrestrained proliferation along roads in the 1920/30s.

‘As a site with poor integration, safety and active/public transport, this development constitutes an unacceptable greenfield incursion.’

If approved, a Section 106 legal agreement would be included to secure affordable housing, primary occupancy and a financial contribution of £5,535 to the council’s coastal mitigation service.

Senior planning officer Jon Sharp, in a report to councillors, states: ‘The proposed affordable housing is much needed in the area and whilst the proposals do not respond as well as we might like to local character and distinctiveness, on balance the proposals for an ‘exception site’ in this location would be acceptable.

‘The availability or otherwise of alternative sites within the village (Broad Road & the old school) are not material to the assessment of the application at hand and whilst some of the refusal reasons given for the previous proposals on this site are still valid, it is clear that this revised scheme is acceptable as an exception site, with the provision of nine affordable dwellings outweighing concerns regarding character and landscape.’