Jacksons Landing among Hartlepool sites given green light for possible new housing

HOUSING: Jacksons Landing
HOUSING: Jacksons Landing

COUNCILLORS have agreed plans for dozens of council-owned sites to be included on a list earmarked for possible future housing developments.

The controversial Jacksons Landing site, at Hartlepool Marina, is the most high profile.

It was included by Hartlepool Borough Council’s finance and policy committee despite concerns by some committee members as putting houses on that site is said to be the “least favourable option” when it comes to re-development of the site.

Exact plans for the former retail site, which is currently derelict, are yet to be revealed but the landmark Marina site is now under council ownership.

The Jacksons Landing site is one of 38 the council has included in the Strategic Housing Land Allocation Assessment, known as the SHLAA as they are considered “suitable” for new housing developments.

The SHLAA is a key part of the Local Plan, a major 15-year planning blueprint. Other sites include the Lynn Street depot, land at Coronation Drive, Marlowe Road, the former Focus unit in Lynn Street and land north of Tees Bay, a piece in Burbank Street, Briarfields Field and the former fairground site in Seaton Carew.

The original Local Plan cost £1.5m and took five years to produce but it was axed after a majority of councillors backed a motion by the Labour Group.

Denise Ogden, Hartlepool Council’s director of regeneration and neighbourhoods, said the SHLAA is a key part of the evidence base that underpins a Local Plan.

The decision was taken by the finance and policy committee, which is chaired by council leader Christopher Akers-Belcher.

A council report said: “Members expressed some concern that the land at Jackson’s landing was included in the SHLAA.

“The chair commented that he had raised the same question but had understood the rationale for inclusion.

“While the authority was looking to some dynamic redevelopment of the site, the option for housing, even when it was the least favourable option, had to be accounted for.”