Planning and Development Committee Minutes

Planning and Development Committee Minutes

Date:
Monday 8 October 2012
Time:
1:30 p.m.
Place:
Mandela Room, Town Hall, Middlesbrough
 

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillor Cole (Chair), Councillors Brunton, Clark, Cox, J Hobson, McIntyre and P Purvis.
Officers:
B Carr, A Hughes and E Vickers.
Apologies for absence:
Councillor S E Bloundele, Councillor W Hawthorne, Councillor P Sanderson
Declarations of interest:

 

Name of Member Type of Interest Item/Nature of Interest
Councillor Brunton Non Pecuniary Agenda Item 3 - M/FP/0712/12/P
Objector known to Councillor
Item Number Item/Resolution
PUBLIC
12/24 MINUTES - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 17 SEPTEMBER 2012

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on 17 September 2012 were taken as read and approved as a true record.

Reports of the Head of Planning and Regeneration
12/25 SCHEDULE OF REMAINING PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE


The Head of Development submitted plans deposited as applications to develop land under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Head of Development Control reported thereon.

SUSPENSION OF COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE NO. 10 - ORDER OF BUSINESS

 

ORDERED that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 10, the Committee agreed to vary the order of business.

 

ORDERED that the following applications be determined as shown:

M/FP/0712/12/P - Subdivision of former (B8) storage and distribution premises to form part (A3) restaurant and retention of existing (B8) storage and distribution unit with ducting to rear of 40 Cumberland Road, Middlesbrough, for Mr T Mahmood

The Head of Development advised Members that this application had been identified as requiring a site visit by members of the Planning and Development Committee. Accordingly a site visit had been held on 8 October 2012.

 

Full details of the planning application and plan status were outlined in the report. The report contained a detailed analysis of the application. The Head of Development advised that the location of the proposed development was classed as white land and as such, was not part of the Local Development Framework.

 

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and 1 letter of objection was received from the occupier of 36 Cumberland Road and a petition from residents representing 16 properties objecting to the proposal, the details of which were advised to the committee. Comments from the statutory authorities were also included in the report.

The residents elected a spokesperson to address the Committee in objection to the application. Councillor McIntyre also elected to address the Committee in objection to the application.

 

ORDERED that the application be Refused for the reasons contained in the report.

 

M/FP/0720/12/P - Variation of condition 7 of M/FP/1321/09/P to alter approved boundary treatment details, including the closure of footpath to Saltwells Close at Bridgewater View, Longlands, Middlesbrough for Miss R Foster

The Head of Development advised Members that this application had been identified as requiring a site visit by members of the Planning and Development Committee. Accordingly a site visit had been held on 8 October 2012.

 

Full details of the planning application, plan status and planning history were outlined in the report.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and 10 letters and a petition containing 65 signatures were received in support of the application. In addition, 26 letters and a petition containing 85 signatures objecting to the proposal were also received. Councillor McIntyre had also submitted representations in support of the application.

 

An article from the Evening Gazette dated 21 December 2009 in which Councillors praised the developer for the way in which it had reached a compromise in respect of the original application was circulated at the meeting to Members of the Committee. In addition, a representation from Mrs E West in objection to the application and comments from Saltwells Road residents with regard to the Planning Officers report were also circulated at the meeting.

 

The Transportation Section had recommended that the application be refused in line with Government Guidance because the removal of the footpath link would reduce the permeability and sustainability of the development. The Police had also commented on the application and submitted recommendations in respect of the application and a Police Constable had also attended the site visit.

 

Further comments had been received from the Head Teacher of Breckon Hill Primary School advising that the school maintained its position in respect of the grant of a permissive right of way across the school field outside of school hours. The report contained a detailed analysis of the application, addressed the objections and comments and analysed relevant policies from the Local Development Framework.

 

The Applicant was in attendance and elected to address the Committee. An objector elected to address the Committee on behalf of Saltwells Road residents and spoke in opposition to the application.

 

ORDERED that the application be Approved on Condition subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

 

M/FP/0815/12/P - Change of use from tanning salon to hot food takeaway (A5) with rear ducting at 4 Lealholm Crescent, Middlesbrough for Mr S Hakim

The Head of Development advised Members that this application had been identified as requiring a site visit by members of the Planning and Development Committee. Accordingly a site visit had been held on 8 October 2012.

 

Full details of the planning application and plan status were outlined in the report. The report contained a detailed analysis of the application and analysed relevant Policies from the Local Development Framework.

 

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and 4 letters of objection and representations from a Councillor from Park End Ward and a Councillor from Beckfield Ward had been received objecting to the proposal. In addition a petition containing 711 signatures, representations from the Community Council and further letters objecting to the proposal had been received, the details of which were advised to the committee.

 

Comments from the statutory authorities were also included in the report and it was highlighted that the Urban Policy and Implementation Team had advised that that there would be grounds for refusal if the application was considered to be contrary to policy.

 

The residents elected a spokesperson to address the Committee in objection to the application.

 

ORDERED that the application be Refused for the reasons contained in the report.

 

M/FP/0843/12/P - Erection of double detached garage at 42 Cedar Drive, Thornton, Middlesbrough for Mr S Ankers

The Head of Development advised Members that this application had been identified as requiring a site visit by members of the Planning and Development Committee. Accordingly a site visit had been held on 8 October 2012.

 

Full details of the planning application and plan status were outlined in the report. The report contained a detailed analysis of the application and analysed relevant Policies from the Local Development Framework.

 

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and 3 letters of objection and representations from Stainton and Thornton Parish Council had been received objecting to the proposal, the details of which were advised to the committee. Comments from the statutory authorities were also included in the report

 

The Applicant was present at the meeting and elected to address the Committee. The residents elected a spokesperson to address the Committee in objection to the application.

 

ORDERED that the application be Approved on Condition for the reasons contained in the report.

 

M/OUT/0704/12/P - Erection of 1 no dwelling with associated access at land to the rear of 50 Hall Drive, Middlesbrough for Mr D McGlade

The Head of Development advised Members that this application had been identified as requiring a site visit by members of the Planning and Development Committee. Accordingly a site visit had been held on 8 October 2012.

 

Full details of the planning application and plan status were outlined in the report. The report contained a detailed analysis of the application and analysed relevant Policies from the Local Development Framework. A Tree Report had also been submitted as part of the application.

 

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and objections to the proposal had been received from Acklam Community Council. In addition, 3 letters of objection and one letter of support had been received in respect of the application, the details of which were advised to the committee. Comments from the statutory authorities were also included in the report .

 

The Applicant was present at the meeting and elected to address the Committee. An objector also addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

 

ORDERED that the application be Approved on Condition for the reasons contained in the report.

 

M/FP/0809/12/P - Two storey extension to side at 23 Geltsdale, Middlesbrough for Mr M Holley

Full details of the planning application and plan status were outlined in the report. The report contained a detailed analysis of the application and analysed relevant Policies from the Local Development Framework.

 

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and 4 letters objecting to the proposal had been received, the details of which were advised to the committee. Comments from the statutory authorities were also included in the report

 

The Applicant was present at the meeting and elected to address the Committee. An objector also addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

 

ORDERED that the application be Approved on Condition for the reasons contained in the report.

 

M/FP/0832/12/P - Single storey extensions to side and rear, two storey extension to rear, new pitched roof over existing garage and external alterations at 125 Guisborough Road, Nunthorpe, Middlesbrough for Mr & Mrs G Francis

The Head of Development advised Members that this application had been identified as requiring a site visit by members of the Planning and Development Committee. Accordingly a site visit had been held on 17 September 2012.

 

Full details of the planning application and plan status were outlined in the report. The report contained a detailed analysis of the application and analysed relevant Policies from the Local Development Framework.

 

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and 4 letters objecting to the proposal had been received, the details of which were advised to the committee. In addition, an objection had also been received from Nunthorpe Parish Council. Comments from the statutory authorities were also included in the report .

 

The Applicant’s agent was present at the meeting and elected to address the Committee.

 

ORDERED that the application be Approved on Condition for the reasons contained in the report.

 

Councillor Cox and Councillor Hobson abstained from the vote with regard to the decision in respect of the application as they had not attended the site visit. Although Councillor Clark had not attended the site visit he had sufficient knowledge of the area to participate in determining the decision in respect of the application.

 

M/FP/0850/12/P - Dormer windows to front and rear at 46 Hilderthorpe, Nunthorpe, Middlesbrough for Mr A Wadsworth

The Head of Development advised Members that this application had been identified as requiring a site visit by members of the Planning and Development Committee. Accordingly a site visit had been held on 8 October 2012.

 

Full details of the planning application and plan status were outlined in the report. The report contained a detailed analysis of the application and analysed relevant Policies from the Local Development Framework.

 

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and 3 letters of objection had been received, one of which was co-signed by 5 other residents. Residents at 58 and 62 Hilderthorpe had also indicated concerns regarding the application following the site visit on 8 October 2012. In addition, Councillor Sanderson and Nunthorpe Parish Council had also submitted objections to the application.

 

Following the receipt of representations, the Planning Officer approached the applicant and his agent to request that they consider redesigning the dormers to form small gable windows and to change the external materials to tile hanging of a suitable colour. However, the applicant had indicated that he preferred to obtain maximum floor space and a UPVC finish on the external cladding.

 

ORDERED that the application be Refused for the following reasons:-

 

1. The proposed dormer extensions by reason of their size and location would not harmonise with the design of  the application property and would be a visual intrusion on this corner plot, to the detriment of the street scene and visual amenity of the area


2. The proposed dormer extension would conflict with Policies DC1 and CS5 of the Council's Local Development Framework and the Nunthorpe Design Statement (Supplementary Housing Document) Policies CA1 and D5.

 

REASON FOR OVERTURN

 

Planning permission was refused for the development because it was not in accordance with Section 38(6)of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 or the policies of the Middlesbrough Development Plan set out below or all material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and the particular circumstances summarised below:-


DC1 - General Development
CS5 - Design
Nunthorpe Design Statement


In reaching this decision the Planning and Development Committee were mindful of the particular circumstances of this application, namely that having carried out a Committee site visit, Members were fully conversant with details of the proposed dormer extensions, and the relationship of the application property to the locality.

 

In addition, Members had taken the opportunity to inspect examples of other dormer extensions within the area, in order to assess the visual impact of the different designs. Having done so, Members considered all of the relevant information and decided that the proposed dormers were unacceptable. This was due to their overbearing size and conspicuous appearance on a prominent corner plot. They would therefore unduly affect the street scene and would impact upon residents' visual enjoyment of the immediate housing area.
 

M/FP/0557/12/P - Double garage with bedroom over at side, single storey extensions to rear, bay window and external alterations to front and retention of existing access with slight widening at 32 Connaught Road, Nunthorpe, Middlesbrough for Mrs C Tranter.


Full details of the planning application and plan status were outlined in the report. The report contained a detailed analysis of the application and analysed relevant Policies from the Local Development Framework.

 

Members were advised that following the initial application, revised plans were submitted and the application was determined on the revised plans.

 

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and no formal comments were submitted. However a verbal objection was received with regard to concerns about the impact of the proposal upon the street scene and protrusion beyond the building line on Kent Close.

 

ORDERED that the application be Refused for the reason set out in the report.

12/26 APPLICATIONS APPROVED BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION


The Head of Development submitted details of planning applications which had been approved to date in accordance with the delegated authority granted to him at Minute 187 (29 September 1992).

 

NOTED
 

12/27 ANY OTHER BUSINESS - MIDDLESBROUGH FIRE STATION PLANNING APPLICATION

In response to a query from a Member, the Head of Development advised Members that the Council were proposing to introduce a new Park Conservation area which would encompass Albert Park and the nearby area including part of Linthorpe Road.

 

The site of the current Fire Station was located within the proposed Park Conservation area and as a consequence the architect responsible for the Fire Station application had been consulted so that he could take account of this fact before submitting the final application for the new Fire Station.

 

Members were advised that the creation of the new conservation area would afford further protection for the Fire Station Tower.

 

NOTED
 

Powered by E-GENDA from Associated Knowledge Systems Ltd