A PROPOSAL to turn part of a former nursing home into residential flats has been turned down by Teesdale District Council.

Messrs Jonathan, Hugh and William Parsons had applied for permission to turn St Peter's House, an extensive range of redbrick Victorian buildings just beyond the Darlington end of Gainford, into five independent flats; two on the ground and second floors, with a single substantial one on the first floor.

But Coun Ken Hodgson told members of the planning south committee on Wednesday that the authority had earlier agreed that the development should be allocated for business purposes. Gainford had lost several small businesses during recent years and they must concentrate on getting business back.

Coun William Salvin of Gainford felt St Peter's had already been used for residential purposes without consent and he was not sure the illegal use had been a detriment to the building, feeling those activities fitted in quite well. But the bugbear was in the keenness to unlock industrial development at the site, irrespective of its merits, and that was too prescriptive. They should look at the application on its merits.

Coun Jo Fergus, also a local member, was under the impression that the owners did not own all the buildings on the site. The part they wanted to turn into flats was the obvious use for office space should the site be industrially developed.

Coun John Watson pointed out that Gainford was in a corridor where people commuted to Darlington and Barnard Castle to work and it was not clear whether that site particularly offered what would meet the needs of the market. He felt very uncomfortable in turning down residential use.

Coun Newton Wood asked if there was a need for enterprise use or a greater need for flats. They should look at needs rather than just a dividing line.

But Coun Hodgson said they were all forgetting that the owners had yet to advertise the premises for another use. That should be done before they decided anything. The flats proposal was part of the main structure of the buildings but that part had never been used for living in. There was a need for jobs in the area and if they allowed this it could be the thin end of the wedge for allowing development in the countryside.

"It must be advertised first," he added.

The parish council had expressed a wish that, notwithstanding the local plan considerations and the fact that the site was outside the village limits, the site be tidied up. But it wanted clarification of the use of the remainder of the site before permission was granted.

Planning officer Mr Trevor Watson said clarification could not be given as part of the application, as it was a separate issue. He told members there was no overriding justification for allowing the application, reminding them that the authority had earlier taken enforcement action to stop the building being used as flats, so it was going to look very strange if they allowed the proposal to go ahead.

Members agreed, voting 7-4 to refuse the application