Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Planning Committee Minutes

Date:
Wednesday, 12th July, 2006
Time:
1.30pm
Place:
Lecture Theatre, Stockton Library, The Square, Stockton-on-Tees
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
(Meeting) Cllr Stoker(Chairman), Cllr Mrs J Beaumont, Cllr D T Brown, Cllr Mrs Cains(Vice Councillor Kirton), Cllr D Cains, Cllr M Cherrett, Cllr K Faulks, Cllr K Leonard, Cllr M Perry, Cllr Mrs M Rigg, Cllr R Rix, Cllr F G Salt, Cllr M Smith, Cllr S F Walmsley, Cllr M E Womphrey.

(Site Visits) Cllr M Stoker(Chairman), Cllr Mrs J Beaumont, Cllr Mrs A Cains(vice Councillor Kirton), Cllr R Cains, Cllr M Cherrett, Cllr K Faulks, Cllr K Leonard, Cllr Mrs M Rigg, Cllr R Rix, Cllr F Salt and Cllr M Womphrey.
Officers:
(Site Visits) B Jackson, S Milner and Mrs M Whaler (DNS).

(Meeting) Miss J Butcher and Mrs T Harrison (LD); B Jackson, R, McGuckin and S Milner(DNS).
In Attendance:
Members of the public, applicants and agents.
Apologies for absence:
for the meeting were submitted on behalf of Cllr Coombs, Cllr Kirton and Cllr Patterson.

for site visits were submitted on behalf of Cllr Brown, Cllr Coombs, Cllr Kirton, Cllr Patterson, Cllr Perry, Cllr Smith and Cllr Walmsley.
Item Description Decision
Public
353 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
 
354 (06/1777/REV)
11 DARLINGTON ROAD, STOCKTON, REVISED APPLICATION FOR SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION, GARAGE TO REAR, ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE IN THE ROOF AND ERECTION OF 1.8M HIGH BOUNDARY BRICK WALL TO FRONT.

RESOLVED that Planning Application 06/1777/REV be approved with the following conditions:-

1.The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan(s); unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority - Drawing Number(s):- SBC0001, SBC0002, DRWG001, DRWG002, DRWG003, DRWG004, DRWG005, DRWG006

2.Notwithstanding any description of the materials in the application no development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the building has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
355 (06/1080/FUL)
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ERECTION OF 61 NO. DWELLINGHOUSES AND 38 NO APARTMENTS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED MEANS OF ACCESS AND LANDSCAPING. HARPERS GARDEN CENTRE, JUNCTION ROAD, NORTON.

RESOLVED that Planning Application 06/1080/FUL be refused for the following reasons:

1.In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the position, design and appearance of the proposed development incorporating four storey buildings and the rear of properties fronting on to a principal road would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area making it a less attractive place in which to live contrary to Policies GP1 and HO11 of the adopted Stockton-on-Tees Local Plan.

2.The proposal does not accord with the Designing Out Crime principle and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed layout encouraged anti-social behaviour and thereby have an unacceptable impact on crime and disorder in the area contrary to Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act.
356 (06/1264/REM)
BOWESFIELD PARK, BOWESFIELD LANE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES, RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF 51 DWELLINGHOUSES AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND MEANS OF ACCESS.

RESOLVED that Planning Application 06/1264/REM be approved, subject to conditions regarding time limits, approved documents, landscaping and planting, materials, finished levels, means of enclosure, boundary treatments, removal of permitted development rights parts A to E, drainage, working period, detail of cycle and gravel paths, noise insulation, condition relating to traffic calming and any other relevant matters.
357 (06/1194/VARY)
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 73 TO VARY CONDITION NO. 2 OF PLANNING APPROVAL 04/2435/FUL (PHASE 1) TO ALLOW AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED LAYOUT PLANS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 255 NO. RESIDENTIAL UNITS, MANDALE ESTATE, THORNABY, STOCKTON-ON-TEES

RESOLVED that Planning Application 06/1194/VARY be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1.The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans or as otherwise may be subsequently agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority: Drawing numbers: 312/09 rev 1; 312/21 rev F; 312/60 rev D; 312/61 rev D; 312/62 rev D; 312/63 rev D; 312/64 rev D; PH01EE; MP01D.

2.Notwithstanding the submitted landscaping scheme shown on Drawing No 312/07rev B, detailed specifications for the following shall be submitted for approval prior to implementation:

•full planting plans;
•tree planting details including positions of pits, statutory services and construction techniques;
•the grass-seed mix and rate of application.

3.The trees indicated to remain shall be retained and not felled, lopped or topped without the previous written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced with trees of such a size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

4.Details of the proposed environmental art indicated on the submitted drawings shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to being installed.

5.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order) the buildings hereby approved shall not be extended or altered in any way without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

6.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order) no integral garages shall be converted into part of the house without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

7.Development works on site shall not occur outside the hours of 8.00 a.m. - 6.00 p.m. weekdays, and 8.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on a Saturday, and there shall be no works carried out on Sundays.

8.There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways.

9.Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor installed in accordance with a scheme previously submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.

10.Notwithstanding the layout herby approved car parking provision shall be in accordance with the Council's Design Guide and Specification (Residential and Estate Development) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
358 (06/1284/VARY)
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 73 TO VARY CONDITION NO. 2 OF PLANNING APPROVAL 04/2434/FUL (PHASE 1) TO ALLOW AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED LAYOUT PLANS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 152 NO. RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, MANDALE ESTATE, THORNABY, STOCKTON-ON-TEES.

RESOLVED that Planning Application 06/1284/VARY be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1.The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans or as otherwise may be subsequently agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority: Drawing numbers: 312/51D, 312/52D, 312/53D, 312/55D, 312 10 Rev K; BWD PS/04; HWD 927 A; HWD 836 A; BWD G/04B; HWD 763 A; BWD 05 A; MP01 D; HWD 828 (SP2) REV A; BWD G/05B; HWD 11011 REV B; BWD EKS/01; BWD ES/65A; 312/22 REV F; NWD A/01 K; BWD WC/06A; WCN/02A; BWD WCN/03A; BWD G/01B; BWD D/01A; BWD D/04B; BWD W/01B; BWD WCN/01A; BWD N/05B; NWD 2/2; NWD D/01M; NWD B/01K; NWD 1/1; BWD PS/01A; BWD P/01B; BWD P/04B; BWD P/05C; BWD/WC/SP/01; HWD 1164; BWD EKS/05; HWD 828 REV C; HWD 806; HWD 836 (SP1) REV A; HWD 665; NWD 3/1; NWD C/01L; BWD F R/04A; BWD R/05A; BWD ES/05A; 312/54A; BWD WC/01B; BWD D/05B; BWD W/05A; BWD PS/04A; PH 03Y; 312/10 rev K; 312/33 rev A.

2.Notwithstanding the submitted and approved plans final details for the design and layout of the linear park shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before construction of the park commences.

3.Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the landscaping on the site shall be as agreed for planning permission 04/2434/FUL and shall be implemented in accordance with those approved details.

4.In respect of the linear park, detailed specifications for the following shall be submitted for approval prior to implementation:

•Full planting plans which shall follow the design principles set out in the Southern Green Design Statement accompanying permission 04/2434/FUL;
•Planting specification;
•Ground levels and mounding;
•Hard surface treatment including materials, cycleway design, road crossing points, curtilage treatment, any walls and fences, street furniture;
•Tree planting details including positions of pits, statutory services and construction techniques;
•The grass-seed mix and rate of application;
•Maintenance specification.

5.The trees indicated to remain shall be retained and not felled, lopped or topped without the previous written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced with trees of such a size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

6.Details of the proposed environmental art indicated on the submitted drawings shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to being installed.

7.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order) the buildings hereby approved shall not be extended or altered in any way without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

8.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order) no integral garages shall be converted into part of the house without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

9.Development works on site shall not occur outside the hours of 8:00am - 6:00pm weekdays, and 8:00am - 1:00pm on a Saturday, and there shall be no works carried out on Sundays and Public Holidays.

10.Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a settlement facility for removal of suspended solids from surface water run-off during construction works shall be provided in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be retained throughout the construction period.

11.There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways.

12.Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor installed in accordance with a scheme previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.

13.The design and implementation of the playing fields shall be in accordance with the details previously approved to discharge conditions 21 and 22 of permission 04/2434/FUL.

14.The barrier detailed on plan 312/10 rev K and 312/33 rev A shall be designed to ensure there is no conflict with approved visibility splays unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
359 (PLANNING APPLICATION 06/1139/REV) FORMER SCHOOL HOUSE AND OFFICES, THE WYND, WYNYARD VILLAGE, WYNYARD - REVISED APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 5 NO HOUSES AND 11 NO APARTMENTS TOGETHER WITH GARAGES, PARKING AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS)
The item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.
360 (06/1554/COU)
47 YARM LANE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES, CHANGE OF USE OF FIRST FLOOR FROM OFFICES TO HOTEL

RESOLVED that Planning Application 06/1554/COU be refused for the following reasons:-

1.In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development by virtue of the insufficient on-site car parking is likely to result in vehicles parking on Yarm Lane hazardous to the free and safe flow of traffic, to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to Policy GP1 of the adopted Stockton on Tees Local Plan.

2.In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the conversion of the first floor from office to hotel would result in lower amenity standards prevailing in the area by virtue of the proximity of the building to No.2 Lawrence Street and to the detriment of these residents and future occupiers of the premises amenity and privacy, contrary to policy GP1 of the adopted Stockton on Tees Local Plan.

3.It is considered that the proposed Hotel would result in an unacceptable intensification of a residential use in a residential area, resulting in an increase in noise and disturbance to the detriment of the existing resident's amenity, contrary to policy GP1 of the adopted Stockton on Tees Local Plan.
361 (06/1308/COU)
47 YARM LANE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES, CHANGE OF USE OF FIRST FLOOR TO HOSTEL WITH COMMON ROOMS, DINING FACILITIES AND MANAGER'S OFFICE.

RESOLVED that Planning Application 06/1308/COU be refused for the following reasons:-

1.In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the conversion of the first floor from office to hostel would result in lower amenity standards prevailing in the area by virtue of the proximity of the building to No.2 Lawrence Street and to the detriment of these residents and future occupiers of the premises amenity and privacy, contrary to policy GP1 of the adopted Stockton on Tees Local Plan.

2.It is considered that the proposed Hostel would result in an unacceptable intensification of a residential use in a residential area, resulting in an increase in noise and disturbance to the detriment of the existing resident's amenity, contrary to policy GP1 of the adopted Stockton on Tees Local Plan.

3.In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development by virtue of the insufficient on-site car parking is likely to result in vehicles parking on Yarm Lane hazardous to the free and safe flow of traffic, to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to Policy GP1 of the adopted Stockton on Tees Local Plan.
362 (06/0878/FUL)
ERECTION OF STABLE BLOCK COMPRISING OF 3 STABLES AND HAY/STRAW STORE AND NEW ACCESS AT LOW MIDDLEFIELD FARM.

RESOLVED that Planning Application 06/0878/FUL be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1.The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan(s); unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority: Drawing Number(s): Drg 001.

2.The development of three stables and storeroom, to which this application relates, shall not be used for commercial purposes.

3.Prior to the commencement of the construction of the external walls and roofs of the development, hereby approved, precise details of the materials to be used in these structures shall be approved in writing by The Local Planning Authority.

4.No waste products derived as a result of carrying out the business, hereby approved, shall be burned on site except in a properly constructed appliance of a type and design previously approved by the Local Planning Authority.

5.Prior to the development, hereby approved, being brought into use details of in curtailage car parking spaces shall be approved in writing by the local Planning Authority. The approved spaces shall be provided before the development is brought into use and shall be retained for the life of the development.
363 (06/1581/REV)
REVISED APPLICATION FOR TWO STOREY EXTENSION AND RAMP FOR DISABLED ACCESS, 1 THE MEWS, STATION ROAD, EAGLESCLIFFE.

RESOLVED that Planning Application 06/1581/REV be approved subject to the following conditions:

1.The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans; unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Drawing Number(s):- SBC 001, 002, 003.

2.Notwithstanding any description of the materials in the application no development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the building(s) have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
364 APPEAL - MR BATES - HANDLEY CROSS, LEVEN BANK ROAD, YARM (05/1883/COU) - DISMISSED
 
365 APPEAL - MR MAHMOUD - 15 STATION ROAD, BILLINGHAM (04/3714/ARC) - ALLOWED
 
366 APPEAL - MR BOYLETT - KENTISBURY, THE SPITAL, YARM (05/2805/FUL) - DISMISSED
 
367 APPEAL - IGP INVESTMENTS LTD - RETAIL WAREHOUSE TRADING AS MAGENT, PORTRACK LANE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES (05/3337/CPE) - WITHDRAWN
 
368 APPEAL - MANDALE COMMERCIAL LTD - BRIDGE ROAD, STOCKTON-ON-TEES (05/3429/FUL) - WITHDRAWN
 
369 APPEAL - MR ROBERTS - 45 TALBENNY GROVE, INGLEBY BARWICK, STOCKTON-ON-TEES (05/2994/FUL) - PART ALLOWED & PART DISMISSED
 
1.30pm - 3.30pm

Preamble

ItemPreamble
353Councillor Walmsley declared a personal/prejudicial interest in relation to Agenda Item No 4 - Planning Application 06/1080/FUL - Residential development for the erection of 61 no dwellinghouses and 38 no apartments together with association means of access and landscaping - Harpers Garden Centre, Junction Road, Norton due to a member of his family working for the applicant.
354The application site was a detached dormer bungalow at No 11 Darlington Road, Stockton-on-Tees, which was located within a street scene of mixed and varied house types.

The proposal involved the erection of a single storey extension, garage to the rear, additional living space in the roof and erection of 1.8m high boundary brick wall to front.

The previous application 06/0772/FUL was withdrawn by the applicant due to concerns raised by the neighbouring property at No 9 Darlington Road, which involved the erection of a single storey extension to the rear, detached garage and creation of additional living space in the roof.

Two letters of objection had been received from neighbouring residents at No 4 Briar Walk and No 9 Darlington Road, Stockton-on-Tees. Due to the applicant being an employee of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council the application was to be determined by the Planning Committee.

The applicant advised that the proposed Velux windows would be in the plain of the roof and above head height.
355Planning permission was sought for the redevelopment of the Harpers Garden centre site off Junction Road, Norton. The development which consisted of the erection of 99 dwellings and associated infrastructure would result in the loss of the garden centre as well as the car park, club house and ancillary development associated with the golf course immediately to the north.

The residential development included a mix of property types, sizes and designs whilst incorporating an area of open space centrally within the site.

The operators of the golf course intended to continue its use through the reprovision of an access and car park. The Local Planning Authority was currently considering an application for the creation of a new access and track off Blakeston Lane.

The application was been supported with the submission of an ecological assessment, noise assessment, flood risk survey and transport statement.

A total of 55 letters of objection had been received in response to the neighbour consultation. The main objections related to the scale and density of the development and the increase in traffic levels on an already congested road where there were other developments having similar impacts and where highway safety would be compromised. Other objections included the loss of the golf course facility, noise and other forms of pollution, impact on wildlife and impact on the setting of the adjoining listed building.

Sport England put forward an objection should the proposed development result in the loss of the provision of the golf course. The payment of a commuted lump sum had been agreed in lieu of the provision of on-site affordable housing as required by Local Plan Policy H04, which was intended to assist in achieving provision elsewhere.

In order to address the ongoing issues raised by English Nature and the Head of Integrated Transport and Environmental Policy, the applicant had submitted several revised plans. The revised plans mainly affected the scheme in the following ways:-

•Bat bricks had been included within the elevation of the apartment blocks,
•Bat boxes were specified as being provided within trees on the periphery of the site prior to construction commencing;
•Bin stores for the apartments had been added;
•Adjustments had been made to the parking layout of the apartments.
•Adjustments in the layout of plots 84-87 and plot 99.

The amended plans, although addressing highways and ecological matters, raised other concerns; although with minor adjustments would be likely to be acceptable. Additional conditions were, therefore, recommended in order to achieve a satisfactory form of development.

English Nature withdrew their objections subject to the imposition of the conditions relating to mitigation and the Head of Integrated Transport and Environmental Policy no longer raised objections to the proposed scheme subject to the criteria being met relating to detailed areas of the proposal.

The Council's Landscape Officer had commented on the revised plans, considering there was an opportunity to plant the embankment areas immediately adjacent to the access to the site. In addition, it was indicated that the 350mm planting strip to the rear of plots 1-11 was wholly inadequate for meaningful planting to take place.

The embankment areas fell within the application site and as such could be considered for planting in association with the landscaping scheme which was required by condition. The 350mm wide strip behind plots 1-11 had been intended to allow climbers to be planted adjacent to the rear garden boundaries. However, having discussed the matter with the Landscape Officer, it was considered that 350mm may be insufficient base due to any ground support or kerb works which would be required within the area. A condition was, therefore, recommended requiring the precise location of the curtilage boundaries to the plots to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and advised that issues were raised by an objector regarding the listed building (Inspector's House) not being advertised and advised that if Members were minded to approve the application an advertisement would be carried out. Members were also advised that the landscaping issue had been addressed in the conditions.

The owner of Railway Cottage was happy for the access to be relocated, however, Members were advised that Network Rail were entitled to use the access, therefore, the access could not be moved.

Members were advised that objectors had raised concerns regarding the traffic; however, it was observed that the Highways Officer had confirmed that they were happy with the issue relating to traffic.

The agent addressed the Committee advising that they had worked closely with the Planning Department and at the request of the Ward Councillor had carried out an exhibition.

The agent observed that the area was a previously developed site, accorded with Planning Policies both locally and nationally, reflected the surrounding and would significantly aid affordable housing.

Objectors spoke or provided documentation on the following concerns:
-Condition 17 did not relate to the development permitted
-The application was contrary to the decision in Newbury and guidance in Government circular
-Scale and layout
-Unkempt land which would create a back street and encourage anti-social behaviour
-Site deserved a good plan and layout
-Continuation of golf course
-Inappropriate house types in particular the 4 storey flats
-Already a precedent of refusal on similar types in the area -Questioned the need for garden centre to be relocated, area was losing its appeal
-Junction Road was now a very busy, gridlocked through road and the nearest bus stop was not very close to the site and was not a practical stop which added to the gridlock.

A Highways Officer advised that they were looking at relocating and improving the bus stops on Junction Road.

The Ward Councillors provided the following comments:
-The application would be the largest in Norton North Ward
-Car boot events were ceasing in the area and the garden centre was closing, therefore there would be less traffic on Junction Road
-The owner of the listed building would be the most affected
-The track had not been included in the application but was included within the red boundary line
-The open space was only 0.25 hectares when the requirement was 0.65 hectares
-The three storey buildings could be put in the area of the site that dipped therefore reducing the impact but four storey buildings would look like prison blocks
-The golf course should be considered when considering the application as the two would affect each other and would like affordable housing to be more affordable.

Members provided the following comments:-

•Houses backing onto main roads should be avoided but if they had to be sited in such places they would need to be closely monitored;
•Concerns were expressed with the design and position;
•Concerns regarding the four storey buildings and anti-social behaviour.
356The application sought reserved matter approval for 51 dwellings on 1.25 hectares (3.2 acres) of land at Bowesfield Park. Outline planning approval was granted in May 2003 (01/0600/P) for a mixed use development comprising offices, e-commerce centres, call centres, motor dealerships, hotel, health club, housing, amenity areas, and sailing centre. On 16 February 2006, planning permission was granted on the site for 49 dwellings, associated roads, cycle path and open space.

The reserved matters details submitted related to siting, design, external appearance and means of access, with landscaping reserved for future consideration. The submitted layout indicated a mix of house types. Open space was not provided, but relied on provided open space adjacent to the site.

The application had been publicised and two letters of representation had been received from a local resident and Commission for the Protection Rural England (CPRE), objecting to the proposed development in respect of its impact on the footpath - Teesdale Way and ground stability. A letter of support had also been received from the applicant's agent.

Minor amendments had been received to the scheme in respect of concerns raised regarding of layout, planting, and parking which changes were felt to be acceptable.

An amended plan had also been received, which took into account the concerns raised in respect of highway, landscape and general disposition matters. Publicity had taken place.

The amended plan had not generated any public comments, however, the Head of Integrated Transport and Environmental Policy and Environmental Health Unit had responded.

The Head of Integrated Transport and Environmental Policy stated that the development would need to comply with the design guidance specification (residential and industrial estates) current edition and would require traffic calming on the main road. It was advised that the requirements be addressed by means of a condition on the development. Comment was made in respect of flooding and it was requested that the applicant enter into a Section 38 Agreement under the Highways Act for the highways and footpaths, which would become maintainable at public expense. In that respect the proposal would then accord with Policy TR15 regarding the design of highways.

The Environmental Health Unit required that conditions attached previously to the outline planning permission regarding noise attenuation be reimposed.

The proposed development was generally acceptable and accorded with the adopted structure and local plan policies.

A Member raised concerns regarding the visual intrusion that would be viewed from Thornaby and commented that they did not know where the children who would live on the site would go to school.

A Member advised that due to works done elsewhere the river footpath at Eaglescliffe was regularly flooded and therefore queried whether the same thing would occur with this application and was advised that the paths would be gravelled which would provide drainage.
357Outline planning permission to redevelop former Council owned land in Thornaby known as the Mandale Estate for new housing was granted in March 2004 (Planning Application 04/0213/0UT) which involved the demolition of some 578 houses to be replaced by approximately 600 dwellings of a mixed type and tenure. Approval of reserved matters for the first phase of development was granted in October 2004 (Planning Application No 04/2435/FUL). The application proposed some 256 dwellings comprising a mix of bungalows, detached/semi/terraced houses and three storey apartments. The first phase was located at the northern end of the site south of Lanehouse Road.

A further application had now been submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Planning Application 06/1194/VARY) to allow the redevelopment of the land without complying with the approved plans (condition 2) which had been amended in respect of changes to the approved layout. The change included the reduction of the number of dwellings by one to 255.

A similar Section 73 application for the Phase 1A housing site relating to former playing land west of Mitchell Avenue was also to be considered by the Committee (Planning Application 06/1284/VARY).

The site was under construction and a number of houses had already been constructed. Most of the houses were empty and some had been demolished. One objection to the planning application had been received from a remaining resident on the site and one more as a result of the applicant serving notice on the remaining property owners.

The changes proposed to the approved layout were not very significant with the same road layout retained. The main amendments related to garaging and the size of some of the house plots.

There were no objection to the changes but an approval was required to replicate, as appropriate, the conditions attached to the previous planning permission.

The Head of Integrated Transport and Environmental Policy commented that a number of the plots required an additional car parking space in accordance with the Council's design guide and specification and was concerned about the distance of garages and driveways from 4 plots as it could potentially lead to on-street parking.

In response the applicant's agent had stated that on the original approval plan the additional space was shown by means of a dotted line but as these were housing association plots where additional spaces were unlikely to be needed, the applicant requested the lines be removed. However, the space remained available for the use.

In reference to the 4 other plots the agent commented that the area was redesigned to replace the block of flats and eliminate a road because of the shape of the site at that time and to maintain density, the garages and associated drives needed to be in the location shown. They considered the arrangement no worse than that of plots 24, 25, 26 and 27.

The Head of Integrated Transport and Environmental Policy acknowledged that whilst it was not an ideal arrangement, the argument had been accepted, however, he still considered the full parking provision should be shown which could be secured by an appropriate condition.
358Outline planning permission to redevelop former Council owned land in Thornaby known as the Mandale Estate for new housing was granted in March 2004 (Planning Application 04/0213/0UT) which involved the demolition of some 578 houses and erection of approximately 600 dwellings of a mixed type and tenure. The provision of a linear park was also included. Approval of reserved matters for the first phase of development was granted in October 2004 (Planning Application 04/2435/FUL). The application proposed some 256 dwellings comprising a mix of bungalows, detached/semi/terraced houses and three storey apartments.

The site, however, excluded the former playing land west of Mitchell Avenue.

A separate application was submitted to develop the area for some 153 dwellings with the application also including details of the proposed linear park which included two new playing fields in part mitigation for the loss of the former playing field. The application formed Phase 1A of the Mandale redevelopment scheme. It was approved in October 2004 and the development was well advanced on the site.

A further application had been submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Planning Application 06/1284/VARY) to allow the development of the land without complying with the approved plans (condition 2) which had been amended in respect of changes to the approved layout and house types. The change included the reduction of the number of dwellings by one to 152.

A similar Section 73 application for the Phase 1 housing site was also considered by the Committee (Planning Application 06/1194/VARY).

One objection to the planning application had been received from a local resident, who had also objected to the other Section 73 application, which more directly affected his property.

The amendments to the approved layout were not very significant with the same road layout retained. The main alterations were changes to garaging and the size of some of the house plots.

The Head of Integrated Transport and Environmental Policy provided comments advising that 2 plots were three bedroomed dwellings and therefore required 2 parking spaces and any four bedroomed dwellings would require 3 spaces in accordance with the Council's Design Guidance and Specification. On other plots he raised concerns that they would have only a 4m splay before encroaching onto the cycle/footway, this would result in vehicles over-running onto the area and increasing the risk of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, which were unacceptable.

In response the applicant's agent had confirmed that the three bedroomed dwellings did have 2 spaces and apart from one house type, all the four bedroomed houses had 3 spaces. However, as the development of Phase 1A was well advanced it would be difficult to accommodate the extra space required. Furthermore, from its original inception the design methodology for the development had always been for 2 spaces for the properties in question.

A barrier was to be provided segregating pedestrians/cyclists from traffic and where necessary drives widened. A plan of the barrier had been prepared for approval.

The barrier detail was generally acceptable to the Head of Integrated Transport and Environmental Policy subject to confirmation that it would not adversely affect visibility but he maintained his concerns that all four bedroomed houses should have 3 spaces in accordance with the Council's design guide and specification.

Given the previous approval and the advanced stage of development it was considered that it would be unreasonable to insist on 3 spaces for the 9 dwellings affected.
360The application site was a large two-storey property situated off Yarm Lane, Stockton. The immediate surrounding area was made up of a mix of both commercial and residential properties.

Planning consent was sought for a change of use for the first floor from offices to a hotel. The applicant's agent envisaged that the proposed hotel would be used by contract workers.

This application was put before Members of the Planning Committee at the request of the local Ward Councillors.

A letter had been received from the occupiers, Baines Jewitt, of the neighbouring property 41-45 Yarm Lane, Stockton. Concerns were raised in relation to notification of the Planning Committee meeting for the planning application and with regard to the information on the Council's website.

The Ward Councillor advised that there was nowhere to park cars in the vicinity and the application did not fit well within plans for regeneration of Parkfield.

A Member advised that an additional condition could be requested regarding amenity.
361The application site was a large two-storey property situated off Yarm Lane, Stockton. The immediate surrounding area was made up of a mix of both commercial and residential properties.

Planning consent was sought for a change of use for the first floor from offices to a hostel. The applicant's agent envisaged that the proposed hostel would be used by contract workers.

This application was put before members of the Planning Committee at the request of the Local Ward Councillors.

A letter had been received from the occupiers, Baines Jewitt, of the neighbouring property 41-45 Yarm Lane, Stockton. Concerns were raised in relation to notification of the Planning Committee meeting for the planning application and with regard to the information on the Council's website.

The Ward Councillor advised that there was nowhere to park cars and that the application did not fit within the plans for regeneration of Parkfield.
362The application related to the erection of three stables and an associated hay/straw store in a field adjacent to Low Middlefield Farm and The Barns development. The proposal also included the provision of a new access from an existing track onto Blakeston Lane.

Six letters of objection had been received from neighbouring residents and Grindon Parish Council had stated that possible issues relating to access should be taken into account.

An objector addressed the Committee and advised that:
There were no connections between The Barn and Low Middlefield Farm, Trees had already been destroyed by the existing horses and a poorly erected electric fence was already in place. Hardstanding area had been built but users of the field did not unlock the gate to enter and instead parked their vehicles on the side of the poorly conditioned road or in the visitors parking area for The Barns. A stable had already been built on the site, however the owner was a resident on one of The Barns to keep and use their own horses. The present owner could sell the site for commercial use

Members requested that a condition be included regarding the parking of vehicles and a condition requiring the applicant to consult with residents of The Barns regarding the finish and colour of the development. However, Members were advised that the parking condition could not stipulate that parking was not to take place on the side of the road as it was a private track and with regard to the finish of the application, Members were advised that conflicting views could be received from the residents of The Barns.
363The application sought planning permission for the erection of a two storey extension and ramp for disabled access at the property 1 The Mews, Station Road, Eaglescliffe.

The main considerations of the application were the affect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the existing property and wider conservation area and the potential impact on the amenities of neighbours.

The application was considered to be in line with policies GP1, H012 and EN24.

The agent spoke in support of the application advising that the scale was appropriate and the layout had been formed by the existing property and would purely be a continuation.

The agent confirmed that the bins would be stored within the side of the property and would be off the alleyway.

A member of the public questioned the validity of the application because the wrong certificate was completed on the application form as the applicant was not the owner of the property. The Principal Solicitor advised that the correct certificate had been subsequently completed within the required statutory period and therefore the application was valid.

The agent responded to queries as to whether the building had the required facilities for disabled use, advising that the existing bathroom was upstairs but a bathroom would be built downstairs thus accommodating the needs for disabled use.

Members questioned whether a stairlift should be included in the property, however they were advised that a stairlift could not be considered in Planning Committee as it was not a planning consideration.

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