Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Local Development Framework Steering Group Minutes

Date:
Tuesday, 28th September, 2010
Time:
4.30pm
Place:
Conference Room 2, Municipal Buildings, Church Road, Stockton-on-Tees. TS18 1LD
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
Cllr Robert Cook (Chairman), Cllr Mrs Jennie Beaumont, Cllr John Fletcher, Cllr Colin Leckonby, Cllr Steve Nelson, Cllr Mick Stoker, Cllr Mick Womphrey
Officers:
S Grundy, Miss J Hutchcraft, I Nicholls, M Rowell, Miss R Wren, Mrs R Young (DNS); P Bell, Mrs T Harrison (LD)
In Attendance:
No other persons were present
Apologies for absence:
Cllr Roy Rix
Item Description Decision
Public
LDF
21/10
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
 
LDF
22/10
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10TH AUGUST 2010.
CONCLUDED that the minutes of the meeting held on 10th August 2010 be agreed as a correct record.
LDF
23/10
SHOP FRONT AND ADVERTISEMENT DESIGN GUIDE SPD
CONCLUDED that the report be noted.
LDF
24/10
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN SPD
CONCLUDED that the report be noted.
LDF
25/10
PARKING PROVISION FOR DEVELOPMENTS SPD
CONCLUDED that the report be noted.
4.30 - 6.00pm

Preamble

ItemPreamble
LDF
21/10
There were no declarations of interest.
LDF
22/10
Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 10th August 2010.
LDF
23/10
Members were provided with a presentation which advised the need for the shop front and advertisements guide supplementary planning document as it would improve the appearance of the Town Centre's in the Borough of Stockton and would build upon and update the current Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Members received clarification that this supplementary planning document would be sufficient to refuse planning applications that were inappropriate. However the SPD would not enable the removal of such things as large banners and plastic signs retrospectively if planning approval had already been given.

Members were advised that if fascias were changed on inappropriate shop signs it could be refused.

Members were advised that advertising on scaffolding did not require planning approval so long as it met with permitted development and the wording was of a certain size.

Members queried officers stance on pre-regulation, gable end advertisement and were advised that they could probable not be removed but they would be required to be kept clean and neat.

Members were advised that there had been discussion as to whether the contents of this proposed SDP should be incorporated into the Sustainable Design SPD; however it had been decided that the two should be kept separate.
LDF
24/10
Members were provided with an outline of the Draft Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document and future tasks necessary for the adoption of the document.

Members were advised that the Supplementary Planning Document had been drafted taking into account internal consultation. The document would be considered at Planning Committee, Cabinet and Council. Following approval, it would be subject to a 6 week consultation period, concurrently with the consultation on the Preferred Options Regeneration Development Plan Document. It was intended that the document would be ready for public consultation in November 2010.
LDF
25/10
A report was provided that informed Members that Supplementary Planning Document 3: Parking Provision in New Developments had been revised and updated to reflect the most recent national guidance and had been retitled ‘Parking Provision for Developments'. In order to fulfil the legal requirements and adopt the revised document, a public consultation of at least six weeks was to be undertaken.

A Member observed that it would be beneficial for officers to highlight where there had been changes in the parking provisions.

Members received clarification regarding garage conversions and the application of parking standards in developments where previous extensions been undertaken under permitted development rights. It was observed that consideration should be given to rephrasing the section relating to garage conversions.

Officers advised that under permitted development rights, officers could not insist that additional parking be provided or that this requirement could then be added to applications for new extensions/conversion.

Can't find it

Can't find what you're looking for? Let us know and we'll do our best to point you in the right direction