Another ‘ghost holiday village’ would be bad for Seahouses. That was the view of parish councillors as they discussed plans for 89 new homes.
An amended version of the proposed scheme for land east of Kingsfield, which has seen the leisure aspects removed, was discussed at Monday night’s meeting of North Sunderland Parish Council.
And while members had a number of concerns about the plans, one protester, Malcolm Cresswell, highlighted another potential problem. He told the meeting that the site is subject to a legal agreement linked to the approval of Kingsfield, which should have seen a play area and other facilities built there.
County Coun John Woodman said that ‘there’s no doubt’ that control of section 106 agreements from the previous districts by the county council ‘has been a mess’.
Members agreed to object to the plans on a number of grounds, including overdevelopment, the lack of need and the effect on sewerage and other village infrastructure. In Kingsfield, only 20 of the 77 properties are occupied full-time.
Plus in the emerging local plan, development is suggested to the west of the village, away from the coast, while 89 homes would represent a large proportion of the proposed 20-year target of 300 homes for the area.