Bishop Auckland plans to create extra care housing refused

A Durham County Council planning committee turned down the application by KSH for 17 apartments amid concerns that the development was not appropriate.

The applicant hoped to redevelop the site at Proudfoot Drive, Bishop Auckland, by erecting a new two-storey building. The proposed development also included extra care housing and communal facilities.

The former laundrette business closed in September due to a lack of customers, KSH said. 

“The current site is a redundant and closed launderette, [which] contributes little to the area,” the applicant said. “Redeveloping it will bring meaningful community benefit. The applicant has offered to open up the laundry area within the scheme to the wider public, and therefore the launderette is safeguarded.”

There is no prospect for further commercial usage at the site, the applicant said. Concerns were raised that the building could become a target for anti-social behaviour and would become dilapidated and become an eyesore to Woodhouse Close residents. 

The statement added: “County Durham continues to face a significant and growing shortage of modern supported living accommodation for adults with disabilities, autism and mental health needs, and data is available to confirm the unmet demand for exactly this type of provision. This scheme provides high-quality, accessible homes that allow vulnerable residents to live independently, safely, and within their own community. 

“The site itself is highly suitable: it is within an established residential area, close to shops, bus routes, health services and community facilities. These are the very characteristics that supported living residents rely upon.”

However, the county council’s planning department recommended the application for refusal due to insufficient information provided and unsatisfactory living conditions. 

Councillor Tom Redmond, Reform member for Bishop Auckland, urged the applicant to look at building the development elsewhere. He said: “Removing this provision risks creating a new gap in local services while trying to address another. Alternative sites should therefore be explored or ensure continued laundry provision is secured before demolition proceeds.”

“It doesn’t fit in with the street scene, so it shouldn’t be built,” Reform Councillor Adrian Schulmann told the committee. 

Councillors unanimously refused the proposal.