P
1/15 | The Evacuation Procedure was noted |
P
2/15 | The Chair informed Members of the Committee and Members of the Public that the Planning Committee meeting was to be recorded as part of the Council’s commitment to legislation permitting the public recording of public meetings, and in the interests of ensuring the Council conducted its business in an open and transparent manner. These recordings would be made available to the public via the Council’s website. Members of the public present who preferred not to be filmed/recorded/photographed, were asked to make it known so that so far as reasonably possible, the appropriate arrangements could be made to ensure that they were not filmed, recorded or photographed.
|
P
3/15 | There were no declarations of interest. |
P
4/15 | Consideration was given to a report on planning application 14/2024/OUT Stillington Social Club, Stillington, Stockton-On-Tees.
Outline planning permission was sought for a residential development of 20 dwellings on the site of Stillington Social Club. The site was made up of the Social Club, its associated car park and peripheral grassed areas. The application sought permission only for the principle of development and the access with matters of Layout, Scale, Landscaping and Appearance, being reserved for future consideration.
The site lay outside of the defined limits of development where housing would not normally be supported however, the council was unable to demonstrate a deliverable 5 year housing supply and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the councils own housing policies within the Local Development Plan were unable to be afforded weight. The village was classed as a sustainable village within the councils villages study whilst the council had highlighted a need for rural affordable houses. The scheme would provide for affordable housing and in view of these matters, the principle of development on this site was acceptable.
The site was accessed off South Street, being the road leading into the village from the west. Existing dwellings lay to the north side of South Street and permission had been recently granted for a development of dwellings in close proximity, on the nearby allotment site. Open fields lay to the south and west of the site with a beck immediately adjacent to the southern boundary.
Objections from residents and the Parish Council revolved mainly around the impacts of additional traffic, the amount of development and the unsustainable nature of Stillington.
The scheme had demonstrated a suitable access was achievable as was the scale of development. The Environment Agency had accepted the scheme could mitigate Flood Risk.
The permission was required to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing, education places, off site public open space / recreation as well as a traffic calming feature for the entrance into the village. These formed part of the Section 106 Agreement and Conditions recommended.
At the 22nd April 2015 Planning Committee Members resolved that they were minded to refuse planning permission, contrary to the recommendation of the planning officer, for the above development on two grounds. The first was that the site was unsustainable in its location. The second was that the site had a poor access.
The Planning Development Services Manager and Principal Solicitor agreed that the Protocol for Decisions Contrary to Officers Recommendation should be invoked due to their concerns that the reasons would not be sustainable at appeal and would place the council at risk of a costs award. The protocol allowed a period of time for a more careful consideration of the proposed reasons for refusal by the Head of Economic Growth and Development Services, Corporate Director of Development and Neighbourhood Services and Director of Law & Democracy. The Protocol provided that in the event that the Head of Economic Growth and Development Services could support the reasons for refusal the refusal notice would be issued for the reasons given by members without further recourse to committee. If the Head of Economic Growth and Development Services could not support the reasons for refusal the protocol provided that the application would be returned to planning committee with a report setting out the concerns regarding the reasons for refusal in full for members to consider before making the final determination of the application.
Given the change in membership of the committee since the matter was last considered the procedure under the protocol was being varied on this occasion to bring the full report back to committee to consider afresh but in the light of the officer’s advice on the previously proposed reasons for refusal.
It must be pointed out that members were free to determine the application in any manner they saw fit, including refusal should they still be so minded, remaining bound by planning legislation, national and local policy, as set out in the original report.
Upon returning to planning committee, planning and legal advice was provided to members to ensure they had all relevant information and advice before them before making the final determination and it was the intention of this report to provide this advice.
Planning advice on first reason for refusal put forward:
Planning Committee considered Stillington to be an unsustainable location for residential development. On this point, officers advised that within the councils own study ‘Planning the future of rural villages’ which was updated in 2014, that Stillington was sufficiently sustainable to allow new residential infill development, being the most sustainable village within Stockton Borough, having employment uses, a school, church, community centre, Public House, recreation area and shop amongst its services. Residential development had also been approved at two other locations within Stillington within the last 12 months which were of a greater scale to this development. This proposed development would provide adequate pedestrian links into the village and its associated services. The National Planning Policy Framework provided a presumption in favour of sustainable development (para’s 11-16 and 49).
In view of these matters, officers considered there was no planning policy argument on matters of sustainability that would warrant the refusal of the application.
Planning advice on second reason for refusal put forward:
Planning Committee considered the proposal to have an unsafe access arrangement. With regards to matters of the access, the proposed development would result in the reconfiguration of the existing access, it would improve the visibility splays above the standard required by guidance, it would provide a reduced gradient to the access into the site, it would provide 2m wide footways at the access and would result in the moving of the 30mph zone to include the site access. In view of these matters and the existing site access being outside of the 30mph zone where the speed limit was 60mph and having an existing use associated with it, officers considered this proposal represented a significant improvement to the existing situation and that the access was of a standard which met guidance. The Highways, Transport and Environment Manager was satisfied with the proposed arrangement.
In view of the above, officers considered there was no planning policy based argument on matters of the proposal having an unsafe access that would warrant the refusal of the application.
In summary, after careful consideration, it as officers opinion that, unless members could provide strong evidence to substantiate the reasons for refusal, to rebut the sustainability assessment of Stillington Village or the technical appraisal of the safety of the proposed access by the highway authority, the merits of the Council’s postulated reasons for refusal were unable to be justified and that they would be very unlikely to be defended successfully on appeal. Furthermore, were an appeal to be made, the Council would be at significant risk of an award of costs on the basis of unreasonable refusal judged by reference to the relevant policy set out in the Planning Practice Guidance.
The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the report.
Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the report.
With regard to planning policy where an adopted or approved development plan contained relevant policies, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 required that an application for planning permissions should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan(s) for the area, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. In this case the relevant Development Plan was the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and saved policies of the Stockton on Tees Local Plan
Section 143 of the Localism Act came into force on the 15 Jan 2012 and required the Local Planning Authority to take local finance considerations into account, this section s70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended required in dealing with such an application [planning application] the authority should have regard to a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application and c) any other material considerations
The planning policies that were considered to be relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.
The Planning Officers report concluded that the proposed scheme was considered to represent sustainable development on a partial brownfield site on the edge of the existing settlement. It had been reasonably demonstrated that 20 units could be accommodated on site whilst providing adequate access, parking, manoeuvring and whilst taking into account matters of Flood Risk, Ecology and other such matters. Conditions were recommended to control the greater level of detail associated with the outline application.
Cllr Andrew Stephenson Ward Councillor for Western Parishes which included Stillington was in attendance at the meeting and given the opportunity to make representation. His Comments could be summarised as follows:
- The development could have a negative impact on the environment.
- The proposed three storey buildings were not suitable within a village community.
- There had recently been three storey homes demolished within Stockton Town Centre which were only erected approximately 20 years previously. If they were not good enough for Stockton Town Centre, they were not good enough for Stillington.
- Proposed access only allowed for one way in and one way out. This was the same as Whitton Grove which was only 300 yards away and had suffered parking issues. The proposed one way in and one way out access could lead to roads being blocked and with similar parking issues to Whitton Grove with the possibility of causing difficulties for emergency vehicles and delivery vans.
- The nearby village of Long Newton had been improved from a one way traffic flow system to a two way system. If the current proposal was to go ahead a two way traffic system should be adopted for Stillington.
Objectors were in attendance at the meeting and given the opportunity to make representation. Their Comments could be summarised as follows:
- The proposed development site was an eye sore and definitely needed something doing with it; however, three storey buildings would be too high.
- It was expected a site visit would have taken place to fully appreciate the situation.
- Even if all the hedges were taken away there was still a substation which would block visibility.
- There were current problems with speeding through the village due to approximately 800 commuters passing through on a daily basis.
- If there was to be 40 cars coming from the new development site at any one time it was only a matter of time before someone was killed.
- There had already been an overkill of new builds in the area.
- 573 new houses had received planning approval over the last few years which would result in a 90% increase of homes within the village.
- Due to cut backs within the last 3 years Stillington had lost its Community Centre to a business.
- Subsidy had been lost on transport twice within the last year resulting in the loss of one bus service. Currently there was only 1 bus every hour.
- There was currently 15 properties for sale in Stillington and only 23 houses had sold within the last few years. There was no demand for new homes.
- Concerns were raised in relation to the impact deflected flood water would have on nearby residents.
A supporter for the application was in attendance at the meeting and was given the opportunity to make representation. His comments could be summarised as follows:
- The Environment Agency had no objections in relation to flooding within the vicinity. Detailed hydraulic surveys had been undertaken and had demonstrated that there was no current risk of flooding from Bishopton Beck.
- All floor levels on the proposed properties would be set well above any predicted flood levels, which also took into account the effects of global warming.
- Any surface water would be collected within the new highway layout and disposed of by the highway drainage designed to suit.
- The three storey dwellings would be set at only a two storey level fronting South Street therefore eliminating overlooking, overshadowing and loss of sunlight. Residents of South Avenue would still enjoy uninterrupted views over the proposed development site.
- Current access roads would be improved, better sight lines and gradients. Hedgerows would be removed and re planted, path links would be improved and a 30mph speed limit would be extended beyond the site to the west to ensure complete safety.
- Planning Committee Members had approved over 90 houses within the past twelve months following officers advice, it had already been acknowledged that Stillington was a sustainable settlement.
Officers addressed the Committee and were given the opportunity to respond to some of the concerns and issues raised by the objectors. Their comments could be summarised as follows:
- In relation to the three storey homes, the third storey would be built within the roof space, effectively the houses would be the height of two storey dwellings.
- The proposed access to the development was considered normal both nationally and locally for an application of only 20 houses. The width of the access complied with current guidance which the fire service accepted.
- Visibility splays complied with current standards.
- Current access operated within a 60mph limit which was being reduced to 30mph with a gateway feature to slow traffic further, showing a significant improvement.
Members were given the opportunity to ask questions/make comments on the application and these could be summarised as follows:
- The development was of a modest scale and would add to affordable housing.
- The proposed site was a car park and disused building.
- Issues in relation to flood risk and access had been adequately answered; therefore there was no reason to refuse.
- If the village continued to grow there was no guarantee services would return however if the population remained static/declined then there was absolutely no chance whatsoever of them coming back.
- There were still issues surrounding redirected flood waters and whether it would impact on neighbouring properties, the site did have a history of flooding.
- There was a foul water pumping station as well as a substation, this totalled two utility structures which could impact on sight lines.
- In relation to sustainability there seemed to be a lack of information detailing primary school numbers at William Cassidy. These should have been included within the report.
- What guidance was looked at in relation to extending the 30mph zone? Could the 30mph zone be extended even further west?
Officers addressed the Committee and were given the opportunity to respond to some of the concerns and issues raised by the Members. Their comments could be summarised as follows:
- There was an offsite issue in relation to flood water and the Environment Agency had expressed their satisfaction that there was a solution that would work in relation to no additional flooding further downstream. Officers were aware that water was coming from one field and crossing the road and entering the club carpark, matters of this type would be taken into account with the redesign of the car park so it would not access the actual estate. The estate itself had to attenuate its own water, adopting a solution which would make it no worse than it already was.
- 30mph zone could be extended further subject to review; however the current proposal was adequate. A sum of money had been agreed to include a gateway access and additional lighting which would give a more urban feel highlighting to drivers they were entering a village whilst keeping to the 30 mph speed limit.
- The foul water pumping station was not perceived to be a large structure and was to be located roughly central within the site and would not affect any access or sight lines.
- With regard to School admission numbers an education contribution would be made from the developer when the development was started if there were no surplus spaces available, however if the school had capacity at the start of the development then no contribution would be required.
A vote then took place and the application was approved. |
P
5/15 | Consideration was given to a report on planning application 15/0481/FUL 12 Jasmine Fields, Kirklevington, Stockton-On-Tees.
The proposal was for a two-storey extension to the rear, the replacement of the 1.8 metre high fence surrounding the rear and eastern boundary of the property with a 2.4 metre high wall and a 2 metre wall on the western boundary. The two-storey extension would project 5.6 metres with a width of 4 metres and would provide a ground floor sunroom and a bedroom extension on the first floor.
Since the initial plans were submitted, the applicant had removed from the proposal the 1 metre high railings around the front boundary and reduced the height of the proposed wall around the rear and eastern boundary from 3 metres to 2.4 metres.
There had been 11 objections received from neighbouring properties (which included additional comments received on the revised plans), these were detailed within the report, with the main issues including damage/removal of the neighbouring hedge, visual impact of the wall and render finish, loss of privacy/overlooking/overshadowing, overdevelopment of the site and noise and disruption during build. No objections had been received from Ward Councillors or the Highways, Transport and Environment Manager.
Notwithstanding the objections received it was considered that the proposed development was visually acceptable and had no significant impact on amenity or highway safety.
The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the report.
Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the report.
With regard to planning policy where an adopted or approved development plan contained relevant policies, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 required that an application for planning permissions should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan(s) for the area, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. In this case the relevant Development Plan was the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and saved policies of the Stockton on Tees Local Plan
Section 143 of the Localism Act came into force on the 15 Jan 2012 and required the Local Planning Authority to take local finance considerations into account, this section s70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended required in dealing with such an application [planning application] the authority should have regard to a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application and c) any other material considerations
The planning policies that were considered to be relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.
The Planning Officers report concluded that in light of the above assessment, it was considered that the proposed development was visually acceptable and had no significant impacts on amenity or highway safety. The proposal therefore accorded with CS2 and CS3 of the adopted Core Strategy and saved local plan policy HO12 and was recommended for approval.
The Applicants Agent was in attendance at the meeting and given the opportunity to make representation. His Comments could be summarised as follows:
- The proposal had been modified in response to comments which had been received from Officers.
- There would be no effect to the occupants of neighbouring property no. 14 Jasmine Fields.
- The new window on the west elevation would have no effect in relation to loss of privacy.
- The extension would not cause any overbearing or loss of light and it complied the the Local Authorities guidance SPG2.
- The 2 metre wall to the west would have no significant impact on any amenity. It was noted that this would normally be permitted development.
- The 2.4 metre wall which did not adjoin the boundary at No. 10 Jasmine Fields would not have any material effect in relation to overbearing or loss of light.
- There were no issues in relation to highway safety as there would not be an increase in the number of bedrooms.
Members were given the opportunity to ask questions/make comments on the application and these could be summarised as follows:
- It was highlighted that the window which was to be a bedroom window with obscured glazing to a level 4 for the life time of the development should also had restricted opening.
- The 2.4 metre wall which was to be rendered and painted was too high and would be out of character with the rest of the estate.
- Concerns were raised in relation to the gap between the boundary wall and the hedge as to who was responsible for it.
- The overall extension would make the house so large it would be out of character within the estate and was disproportionate to the existing dwelling.
- Issues surrounding the internal layout of the build were raised in relation to the future possibility of a further bedroom being added to the first floor and the possibility that this may be a fire risk.
- Questions were raised as to the nature of the chimney, was it to house a wood burning stove and what impact would this have on neighbouring properties?
Officers addressed the Committee and were given the opportunity to respond to some of the concerns and issues raised by Members. Their comments could be summarised as follows:
- In relation to the bedroom window which was to be obscurely glazed, if Members were not happy with the opening of the window then a condition could be amended to make the window a fixed, none opening window.
- With regards to the hedge and the gap between the wall and the hedge, it would be the landowners responsibility to maintain the land between the hedge and the wall however although that might be difficult it was understood that the hedge would eventually fill that gap.
- In relation to the internal layout, there would be nothing to stop future occupiers changing the use of the room.
- With regards to the Chimney, yes it would be a wood burning stove, which the Environment Agency had no objection to.
Members considered the report and raised concerns in relation to the proposed obscurely glazed bedroom window on the west side elevation not having a restricted opening feature.
Members felt that a condition should be amended which stated that the window not only have obscured glazing to a level 4 for the life time of the development but also be fixed.
The motion was moved and seconded that condition 2 be amended and that the window be fixed and obscurely glazed to a minimum level 4.
A vote then took place and the motion was carried.
A vote then took place and the application was approved with a revision to condition 2 as detailed below. |
P
6/15 | Consideration was given to a report on planning application 15/0384/X
Riverside, 11 Teesbank Avenue, Eaglescliffe
The application for tree works was to fell 2.no Larch trees in the rear garden of 11 Teesbank Avenue in Eaglescliffe.
The main reasons given by the applicant to fell the Larch trees was because of the poor form of the trees and he also wished to eliminate the risk of the trees falling due to land movement.
There has been 6 letters of objection received for this application. The main concerns of the neighbours were the effect the removal of the two trees would have on the visual amenity and biodiversity of the area.
The Principal Tree and Woodland Officer recommended the proposal to fell the Larch trees was approved on the grounds that the trees were of poor structural form and individually did not have significant specimen value.
The application was therefore recommended for approval.
The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the report.
Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the report.
With regard to planning policy where an adopted or approved development plan contained relevant policies, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 required that an application for planning permissions should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan(s) for the area, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. In this case the relevant Development Plan was the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and saved policies of the Stockton on Tees Local Plan
Section 143 of the Localism Act came into force on the 15 Jan 2012 and required the Local Planning Authority to take local finance considerations into account, this section s70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended required in dealing with such an application [planning application] the authority should have regard to a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application and c) any other material considerations
The planning policies that were considered to be relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.
The Planning Officers report concluded that the Larch trees were of poor structural form and individually did not have significant amenity value. The applicant had also planted 3 Scots Pine trees which were considered to be acceptable replacements.
It was recommended that the application be Approved for the reason specified within the main report.
An Objector was in attendance at the meeting and given the opportunity to make representation. His Comments could be summarised as follows:
- Not objecting to the tress being felled, however worried in relation to the long term strategy. The current trees certainly did not add anything to the amenity.
- Concerned that healthy hardwood trees had been butchered within the last ten years.
- Where trees had been removed although they had been replaced, they had not been replaced in the correct location.
- Where future trees were to be removed within the Tees Heritage Park, it was suggested that hardened replacements tees were placed within the same place as the removed tree or within 1.5 metres of that tree.
- The Riverbank used to have a dense tree habitat, which was no longer the case.
- The Council had a duty of care to look after the Tees Heritage Park.
Officers were given the opportunity to address the Committee in relation to issues which had been raised by the Objector. Their comments could be summarised as follows:
Where there was a condition to re-plant there was a standard duty to re-plant, unless there were enough trees already. There were currently young trees within the vicinity of the trees to be felled and the removal of the weak trees would allow the remaining trees to flourish. Therefore, in relation to the application there were replacement trees on or near the required location and the historical removal of trees was irrelevant when looking at this specific application.
The application met the standard requirements.
Members were given the opportunity to ask questions/make comments on the application and these could be summarised as follows:
- Scotch Pine was a poor replacement for the Larch trees which were to be felled, even if they were in poor condition.
- Additional trees of a superior quality should form part of the conditions. Scotch pines were fast growing less superior trees.
- Assurance was sought that when the Larch trees were felled that nothing happened to the remaining 3 trees.
Officers were given the opportunity to address the Committee in response to issues raised by Members. Their comments could be summarised as follows:
- The permission sought was for the felling of the two Larch trees, if any other works were carried out over and above that then that would be an enforcement issue and be considered unauthorised works, which there were procedures in place for.
A vote then took place and the application was approved. |
P
7/15 | Consideration was given to a report on planning application15/1059/LAF Northfield School And Sports College , Thames Road, Billingham
Planning permission was sought for the construction of a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) on the footprint of an existing games area at Northfield School, Billingham.
Under the Council's Scheme of Delegation, the application was put forward for determination by the Planning Committee as the scheme did not constitute minor development. No objections had been received from statutory consultees subject to a number of conditions.
The proposed development was considered to be of an appropriate scale, design and layout for its setting, achieved satisfactory spacing from surrounding properties and was not considered that it would result in any unacceptable impacts on residential amenity. The proposed scheme was considered to satisfy the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Core Strategy Policies CS3, CS6 and CS10 and as such was recommended for approval.
The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the report.
Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the report.
With regard to planning policy where an adopted or approved development plan contained relevant policies, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 required that an application for planning permissions should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan(s) for the area, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. In this case the relevant Development Plan was the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and saved policies of the Stockton on Tees Local Plan
Section 143 of the Localism Act came into force on the 15 Jan 2012 and required the Local Planning Authority to take local finance considerations into account, this section s70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended required in dealing with such an application [planning application] the authority should have regard to a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application and c) any other material considerations
The planning policies that were considered to be relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.
The Planning Officers report concluded that the proposed MUGA would provide functional improvements at the school and it was considered that the MUGA would not have unacceptable impacts upon the appearance of the school site or residential amenity. The proposal was in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan and was therefore considered acceptable and it was recommended that the application be approved with conditions for the reasons as specified within the main report.
Members were given the opportunity to ask questions/make comments on the application.
A vote then took place and the application was approved. |
P
8/15 | Consideration was given to planning application 14/2816/FUL West Acres, Durham Lane, Eaglescliffe.
On 8th April 2015 the Planning Committee resolved to approve application 14/2816/FUL West Acres, Durham Lane, Eaglescliffe subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement by the 10th June 2015. The applicant had indicated that they were likely to be delayed in the signing of the Section 106 Agreement and had therefore requested the recommendation be amended to allow for signing of the Agreement up until the 12th August 2015. This request was considered acceptable.
It was explained to Members that as there was a bank involved a slight delay had been encountered, however all paperwork was due back no later than week ending the 20th June 2015.
A vote then took place and the application was approved. |
