Controversial homes development rejected
Controversial plans for a new Gentoo housing development have been rejected after heavy objection from people already living in the area.
City leaders hit the brakes on proposals for 13 homes on land in Willows Close, Washington, in November over concerns about road safety and environmental destruction.
And after requesting more time to consider the scheme, the application was given a firm no – despite an official recommendation to grant approval.
“It’s a bridge too far to rip up this green space,” said Cllr Len Lauchlan.
“I don’t think Sunderland City Council agrees with Gentoo, but is kowtowing because it is about affordable homes.
“I hate to oppose affordable homes, but this is just the wrong place.”
Cllr Lauchlan was speaking at a meeting of the city council’s Planning and Highways Committee for the west of Wearside on December 23, which was held by videolink and broadcast via YouTube.
Opposition to the plans to build 13 properties, including two bungalows, on the land focused on the loss of green space for families already living in the area.
A report for the panel by the city’s planning department admitted the scheme would result in the loss of green space in an area already thought to be lacking in it, but insisted this would be balanced by a ‘significant uplift in the quality of the remaining space’.
Plans stated all the properties would be offered at ‘affordable’ rents, defined as at least 20% below market rates, something Sandra Mason, speaking on behalf of Gentoo, predicted could become increasingly important.
She said: “This needs to be considered in the context that Sunderland has a significant affordable homes deficit, which is identified [in the latest assessment] as 2,187 dwellings.
“At present, Gentoo has over 15,000 people on our waiting list for a Gen too home.
“While that will include a significant proportion who are already Gentoo tenants.
“This need is unfortunately likely to be exacerbated by the impact of the current Covid crisis, with a sharp rise in the number of people claiming Universal Credit.”
But it was not enough to convince the panel, which voted unanimously to reject the application.