Bid to block Gilesgate student halls plans for Sherburn Road bingo hall rejected by Durham councillors
A second chance to save a County Durham bingo hall ended in disappointment as councillors voted once again to demolish it and build student flats.
Plans to knock down the Apollo bingo hall, in Sherburn Road, Gilesgate, Durham, and replace it with 128-bed student digs were originally approved in January.
The scheme was returned to decision-makers at Durham County Council for a second look after new information which seemed to refute the developer’s figures was brought forward.
But despite this and a wealth of objections from councillors, neighbours and Durham City MP Mary Foy, the proposals were once again given the green light.
Applicants Durham Grove Ltd and Majestic Bingo’s plans for the site , which opened in 1938 and has also operated as a cinema and boxing gym, had claimed 3,000 students living in the city needed to be relocated.
However, these figures were disputed by Durham University, which said proposed the three and four-storey accommodation blocks would not be suitable for its own portfolio, though it added it had no objections in principle to the scheme.
Speaking at the county council’s Area Planning Committee, Labour opposition leader Carl Marshall said: “We need to have more choice.
"We need to create something of better quality that’s more affordable.
“I think the direction of travel tells me that we’re going to need more managed student accommodation built in the right place.”
Daniel Puttick, speaking for the applicant, said the development would make a “meaningful contribution” to tackling a large projected shortfall in student bed spaces.
He said the plan had been greatly reduced as a “significant compromise”, it would bring regeneration benefits and the bingo hall was not well-used.
He said: “The business is simply no longer viable as a going concern and inevitably it will close.”
Planning officers found the plan acceptable, said it would not significantly harm residents, and recommended approval.
Senior planning officer Leigh Darby told the panel: “The current owners have stated that the business is not viable.”
Objectors, who wrote 39 letters, said the plan would needlessly rob the area of a “much-loved building” and replace it with an “incongruous”, “monolithic” and “overly dominant” block which would disturb existing residents.
But five letters supporting the application claimed the site was an eyesore which needed regeneration to bring jobs and boost the city’s economy.
The plan was approved by a 9-6 vote.