‘DANGEROUS BUILDING’: How long do Gainford residents have to wait before this eyesore building is torn down? That’s the question parish councillors and residents in Gainford want answered after owner Ruttle Plant Hire has appealed against planning conditi
‘DANGEROUS BUILDING’: How long do Gainford residents have to wait before this eyesore building is torn down? That’s the question parish councillors and residents in Gainford want answered after owner Ruttle Plant Hire has appealed against planning conditi

PLANNERS say there is nothing stopping St Peter’s in Gainford being demolished, despite the owners appealing consent conditions.
Ruttle Plant Hire was given permission by Durham County Council planners in May to demolish the long-abandoned former children’s home after concerns about safety were raised following a blaze in 2020 which destroyed two floors and the roof.
However, the owners have now appealed the two conditions stipulated by Durham planners to have demolition materials removed from site within three months and a boundary wall to be erected using original bricks.
This move, residents and parish councillors say, could further delay any action at the dangerous site, which has regularly been the target of vandals.
Durham’s principal planning officer in charge of the south west region, Steve Pilkington, told parish councillors at their latest meeting last week that St Peter’s had been a problem building for many years and planners felt the conditions were appropriate.
The cost of building a wall, he added, was not prohibitive as they were a company and not an individual and he said the authority was in the process of rebutting Ruttle’s claims.
Mr Pilkington said: “In planning we cannot require them to demolish, however, we are exploring whether we have enforcement powers to force them to get on with it. The sticking point is the erection of this wall.”
When a previous part of St Peter’s had been demolished seven years ago following a fire, Cllr Sarah Hannan pointed out, planners stipulated a bund be put in place and asked why there was a difference now.
She added: “The red brick wall I think is going to be a bit of an eyesore and not in keeping.
“The whole entrance to the village there is hawthorn hedge. Environmentally it doubles as a home for wildlife and the blossom is beautiful when it is out in spring. You wouldn’t get any of that with a red brick wall.
“The cost to the developer ... looks to me like it is something that is punitive.”
Mr Pilkington added it had been felt a bund would be unsightly and disputed the cost to build a wall was punitive.
Cllr Hannan said: “We have a building that the fire brigade has said that it should be demolished as soon as possible due to the risk to life.
“The local kids take materials out of the building to build their skate parks but the way things are a child could get hurt in that building.
“Ruttle are not developers. They are investors and it is just one of their holdings and they may sit on it for another 20 years. We are saddled with a property and someone is going to have a nasty accident.”
Chairman Cllr Andrew Wilkinson said: “The concern is that the only way these things come to a head is if there is an accident, like a death, before something really kicks in.
“It sounds like we are between a rock and a hard place.”