DURHAM County Council should make an order buy and destroy a dale eyesore.
That’s the view of fed-up parish councillors in Gainford, who heard yet more plans have been put forward for the site of the former St Peter’s school. The latest scheme involves building 37 homes on land next to the delapidated building – but does not include the demolition or redevelopment of the former school itself, prompting the village’s parish council to raise concerns at its latest meeting.
Cllr Tony Buckley said: “I don’t care about the development, as long as St Peter’s is knocked down, to be quite honest. It is the biggest eyesore around the whole of County Durham.”
The land on which the remnants of St Peter’s stands belongs to Ruttle Plant, while the area to the rear is owned by Kebbell Homes, which has lodged the latest proposals.
Previously, the two landowners submitted a joint application to develop the land which was approved, but they were unable to reach an agreement and it never progressed.
A previous application by Kebbell to develop its part of the site was rejected in 2019 on the grounds that it did not include the main building.
This time Kebbell argues that the building is not relevant to its application because it does not own that part of the site.
However, the scheme has drawn an objection from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).
Richard Cowan, of CPRE, maintains the only way the plans can be approved is if it is an “enabling development” and includes proposals for St Peter’s.
Discussing the issue, at this month’s meeting, Gainford Parish Council chairman Cllr Andrew Wilkinson said: “Richard Cowan doesn’t oppose development of the site per se, he opposes the way the planning application has been submitted because it is based on a building that isn’t owned by the developer.
“Is there anything we can do, other than note that this guy is extremely good at what he is doing and he is fighting, I think, for the right type of development?”
He added that many people in the village would like to see the site levelled and returned to farm land, but that was unlikely as it is classed as a brownfield site.
Cllr Simon Platten said two years ago, the fire service had declared the building unsafe after an arson attack and had recommended it be demolished, and yet it still stood.
He added: “If some serious high winds come along there is a danger of death. Rubble is not going to stay within the confines of that fence in high winds.”
He also blamed Durham County Council for not resolving the problem sooner.
He said: “Durham County Council are making themselves look ridiculous because they cannot sort it out.
“They have had 20 years of trying to sort this out and they have failed. They should do compulsory purchase if they can’t get the two landowners to agree.”
However, county officers say they are doing all they can to find a solution.
The county’s planning development manager Stephen Reed said: “Planning officers remain in discussions with the landowner to establish whether a suitable scheme of remediation can be produced for the site.
“Although no agreement has been reached at this point in time, these talks will continue.
“Our building control service continues to monitor the site on a regular basis and liaise with the owner to ensure appropriate safety measures are in place.”
Gainford Parish Council agreed to offer no objection to the development but to reiterate its concern that a solution must be found for the building.
