Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Planning Committee Minutes

Date:
Wednesday, 31st August, 2011
Time:
01.30 p.m.
Place:
Lecture Hall, Stockton Central Library, The Square, Stockton on Tees, TS18 1TU
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
Cllr Robert Gibson(Chairman), Cllr Jean Kirby(Vice-Chairman), Cllr Jim Beall, Cllr Gillian Corr, Cllr Paul Kirton, Cllr Alan Lewis, Cllr David Rose, Cllr Norma Stephenson, Cllr Mick Stoker, Cllr Steve Walmsley and Maurice Perry (Vice Councillor Andrew Sherris)
Officers:
C. Straughan, B. Jackson, F. Farooqui, P. Shovlin (DNS); J. Butcher, M.Henderson (LD)
Apologies for absence:
Cllr Andrew Sherris
Item Description Decision
Public
P
19/11
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
 
P
20/11
11/1472/FUL
THE HOLMES NATURE RESERVE, CHESTERTON AVENUE, THORNABY
INSTALLATION OF ARTWORK BY CREATION OF THREE ATTRACTIVE WAVE FORMS SEEN AS EARTHWORKS FROM THE LANDWARD SIDE AND IN STONE FACE FROM THE RIVER AND OPPOSITE BANK. THE EMBANKMENTS WILL PROVIDE ENHANCED RIVER VIEWS BY ENABLING AN EXTENDED PERSPECTIVE FROM THE RAISED GROUND, AND ALSO PROVIDE A REST AREA OVERLOOKING THE RIVER WITH A SEAT BUILT IN TO ONE OF THE STONE FACES

RESOLVED that

Planning application 11/1472/FUL be Approved
subject to the following Conditions:

1. The development hereby approved shall be in accordance with the following approved plan(s); unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Plan Reference Number Date on Plan
TV044.20 15 June 2011
TV044.30REVA 7 July 2011

Materials

2. Notwithstanding any description of the materials in the application, precise details of the materials to be used in the construction of the facia(s) of hereby approved art works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of the external walls and roofs of the building(s).

Site and floor levels

3. Notwithstanding the information submitted as part of the application details of the existing and proposed site levels and finished heights of the sculptures shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.

Method Statement for Works;

4. Notwithstanding the submitted details, before development commences a method statement detailing operational activities with respects to the proposed development shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall specify the area for the storage of materials and details for the wheel washing of construction vehicles in relation to the proposed development and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
P
21/11
1. APPEAL MR JOHN GRAY - VACANT PLOT AT THE REAR OF 6 FOREST LANE KIRKLEVINGTON - 10/2322/FUL - DISMISSED
2. APPEAL - MR & MRS SUTHERAN - 51 WANSFORD CLOSE BILLINGHAM - 11/0383/VARY - ALLOWED
3. APPEAL - MR STUART DICK - STAYPLETON HOUSE RAGWORTH PLACE NORTON - 11/0230/CPL - ALLOWED AND APPLICATION FOR COSTS ALLOWED

RESOLVED that the appeals be noted.
1.30pm/2.20pm

Preamble

ItemPreamble
P
19/11
Councillor Walmsley declared a personal, non prejudicial interest in item 3 The Holmes Nature Reserve, Chesterton Avenue, Thornaby as he was a member of Thornaby Town Council, which had been consulted on the application. Cllr Walmsley confirmed that he had taken no part in the town council's discussions and was not pre determined.
P
20/11
The Committee was presented with a report and update relating to an application for a proposal on The Holmes Nature Reserve, Chesterton Avenue, Thornaby, which would form part of the Tees Heritage Park. The proposal as detailed in the heading above would be positioned along a stretch of the River Tees embankment at raised level providing an elevated view of the river. Access to the reserve was via a public footpath leading from the hammer head of Chesterton Avenue, Thornaby.

It was explained that 12 letters of objections from residents within surrounding streets of Chesterton Avenue, Lawrence Road, Thornaby and from a resident in Middlesbrough had been received along with seven letters of support from local residents, the Village Park Residents' Association and consultees such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The main concerns raised were based on anti-social behaviour, impact on nature reserve/ wildlife with man made structure, visual impact, highway safety issues within this locality and lack of consultation with regards to the proposal. In accordance with the approved scheme of delegation, the application was being reported to the Planning Committee for determination.

The applicant had submitted relevant documentation justifying the development in this location and had emphasised that the proposed development would benefit the local community by continuing its enjoyment of the natural environment and encourage its recreational use, without having a detrimental impact on the wildlife, existing landscape features and providing a sustainable form of development.

The Committee noted the comments of other consultees to the application and was also provided with details of planning policies and material planning considerations associated with the application.

It was explained that officers considered that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area or amenity of surrounding sites and would not have any significant impacts on species of conservation importance, flood risk or highway safety. The development was judged to be in accordance with Government guidance and local planning policies.

The Committee heard from a local resident who had objected to the proposals. The objector raised a number of areas of concern to support her objections.

She explained that the Nature Reserve already attracted individuals who were involved in anti social behaviour. She considered that the proposals would make that situation worse and would provide an area for such individuals to congregate. With the Chairman's permission, she circulated photographs to the Committee, which she considered provided evidence of littering, plus vandalism to a wooden footbridge within the reserve. She explained that the Fire Brigade was regularly called to the reserve to put out fires started by youths. She agreed that the community should not let a thoughtless minority of people stop it from doing things but was concerned at the potential effects on the reserve and consequently the wildlife in it.

The objector also considered that parking would be a problem on the surrounding streets because of increased numbers of visitors.

The Committee then heard from a local resident, the Secretary of the Village Park Residents Association and a representative of the Friends of Tees Heritage Park, all of whom supported the proposals. They provided reasons for support and responded to some of the objections:

- the idea had come out of consultation and had received considerable support. Local children had been involved and encouraged to take ownership. The Tees Heritage Park, in which the reserve sat, would help link communities along the river together.

- the proposals were appropriate, would compliment the reserve and were integral to the concept of the Park as a whole.

- traffic flow would not be a problem nor would parking on the nearby streets. It was suggested that most visitors would access via Preston Park

- there was a desire across the community to not let potential anti social behaviour be a reason for stopping the proposals going ahead.

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