Flats to be built at former Darlington drugs centre

A DEVELOPER has won its appeal against Darlington Council’s refusal to allow it to convert a former drug rehabilitation centre into flats.

Levy Developments has also been awarded partial costs of the appeal after an independent planning inspector found that the council’s refusal to grant permission for seven flats to be built in the former Elmfield Centre at 29 Corporation Road amounted to "unreasonable behaviour".

The development had been recommended for approval by a planning officer but the council turned down the application made in March 2012 amid concerns over parking congestion and the small size of the proposed flats.

Following an appeal, planning inspector Matthew Birkinshaw visited the site and concluded that there was sufficient parking to accommodate extra residents and that the flats exceeded the minimum required floorspace of 19 square metres.

Jeremy Good, director at England and Lyle who represented Levy Developments, said: “The proposal was backed up with a considerable amount of information including parking surveys which demonstrated that the objectors’ concerns were unfounded.

“It was regrettable that we had to go to appeal with this scheme given the officers' recommendation, but obviously we are delighted with the outcome and by the inspector’s decision.”

In awarding partial costs to Levy developments, Mr Birkinshaw’s report stated that Darlington Council failed to substantiate its decision to refuse planning on the basis of the size of the flats because it used guidelines relevant to houses of multiple occupation, not separate apartments.

He stated that this amounted to “unreasonable behaviour” which led to “unnecessary cost” to the developer in having to address the issue at appeal.

The Corporation Road building used to house the Elmfield drug rehabilitation centre before approval was given in 2010 to move the service to the former Salvation Army citadel on Northgate.

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:28pm Sun 3 Feb 13

always right says...

lol,,,DBC lose AGAIN. These blithering idiots on the council are determined to carry on wasting our money at every opportunity it seems. Roll on voting day i say. Oh,and well done Levy developments.
lol,,,DBC lose AGAIN. These blithering idiots on the council are determined to carry on wasting our money at every opportunity it seems. Roll on voting day i say. Oh,and well done Levy developments. always right
  • Score: 0

10:26pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Darloresident says...

Datrlington council..once again playing poitics with tax payers hard earned cash..Do they know the rules when it comes to planning applications?Or is it just that because they dont want a development and say No without any justification that they expect the applicant to just go away??I wonder how much of our money they paid to "defend" an obvious unwinabble appeal..Absolute bunch of incompetents
Datrlington council..once again playing poitics with tax payers hard earned cash..Do they know the rules when it comes to planning applications?Or is it just that because they dont want a development and say No without any justification that they expect the applicant to just go away??I wonder how much of our money they paid to "defend" an obvious unwinabble appeal..Absolute bunch of incompetents Darloresident
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Spy Boy says...

Losers ! Who is paying the bils on this one ? Us. Minimum of 19 square metres looks a bit like a rabbit hutch to me. Our rabbit had 6 sq m. That's a third of the above limit. That's just over 3m by 6m. Who are they looking for as tenants, Hobbits ?
Losers ! Who is paying the bils on this one ? Us. Minimum of 19 square metres looks a bit like a rabbit hutch to me. Our rabbit had 6 sq m. That's a third of the above limit. That's just over 3m by 6m. Who are they looking for as tenants, Hobbits ? Spy Boy
  • Score: 0

11:09am Tue 5 Feb 13

Lifetime Townie says...

Another legal blunder by the council. Just who is in charge at the town hall that is capable of some sensible judgement and the understanding of basic planning laws??????
Another legal blunder by the council. Just who is in charge at the town hall that is capable of some sensible judgement and the understanding of basic planning laws?????? Lifetime Townie
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree