Planning and Development Committee Minutes

Planning and Development Committee Minutes

Date:
Friday 14 December 2012
Time:
1:30 p.m.
Place:
Mandela Room, Town Hall, Middlesbrough
 

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillor Cole (Chair); Councillor Brunton (Vice Chair); Councillors Clark, Cox, Hawthorne, J Hobson, P Purvis and Sanderson.
Officers:
B Carr, M Chilton, P Clarke, A Hughes, E Vickers and S Williams
Apologies for absence:
Councillor F McIntyre
Declarations of interest:

There were no declarations of interest at this point of the meeting.

Item Number Item/Resolution
PUBLIC
12/28 MINUTES - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 8 OCTOBER 2012

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on 8 October 2012 were taken as read and approved as a true record.

Reports of the Head of Planning and Regeneration
12/29 SCHEDULE OF REMAINING PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE.


PLANS

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/0951/12/P - 2 no semi detached 1.5 storey bungalow dwellings at land adjacent to Nos 5 & 29 Brierley Green, Marton, Middlesbrough, for Grainger Plc

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 14 December 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 28 objections and a petition from residents containing 116 signatures objecting to the proposal were received, the details of which were advised to the committee. Comments from the statutory authorities were also included in the report.


The applicant’s architect elected to address the Committee on behalf of the applicant. The applicant’s architect advised the Committee that in response to the written objections raised by residents, he would consider removing part of the wall in front of the bungalows at 11 - 21 or move it westwards. He also advised that he could if required, move the dwellings westwards and he would be agree to the amendments being included as part of the planning conditions on the development.

 

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

 

The Head of Development advised that there were a number of ways to soften the impact of the development. The architect could amend the roof design and introduce hips instead of gables. If the fence was moved to the corner it would create another metre of space in front of the bungalows and the corner of the wall could also be splayed. The Head of Development advised Members that they needed to consider the National Policy Framework which advised that the Committee when considering applications needed to look at the efficient and sustainable use of urban land.

 

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

 

The application site comprises an area of open space which was implicit to the original estate layout and continues to provide a valued amenity area for the occupiers of the dwellings in the immediate vicinity. By developing the site, the built form would remove that amenity and create an oppressive outlook for the nearest residents, which would seriously impact upon their principal windows. It would create a tunnel of built form and in doing so would unacceptably conflict with policies DC1 (General Development) and CS5 (Design) in the Council's Local Development Framework

 

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

 

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 the configuration of the application site, its relationship with the adjoining dwellings, their internal arrangements and windows, together with the details of the proposed scheme. Having done so, Members considered that the existing area of open space performed a vital function and was of significant benefit to the amenity of the area. By developing the area of open space, it would remove the benefit of that amenity and would create a negative outlook for the nearby occupiers.


The built form would be oppressive to those occupiers and would tunnel their main front windows, which constitutes their principal amenity. Members therefore refused the application.

 

M/FP/0776/12/P - Erection of 1 no retail unit with associated car parking, servicing and landscaping at former Arundale site, Dalby Way, Coulby Newham, Middlesbrough for Jomast Developments.

 

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 14 December 2012.

 

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

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and the occupiers of 39 and 40 Willowbank had submitted representations objecting to the proposal. The occupier of 40 Willowbank had submitted additional representations which reiterated that they were in general in favour of the scheme however they had objected to the application because of the noise which would be created by the night time deliveries as the area was currently quiet on a night time. The occupier of 29 Tollesby Bridge submitted a letter of support for the application.

 

The Council’s Environmental Health Section had stated that they had no objections to the proposal subject to conditions to deal with contamination, noise, lighting, Service Yard Management, opening hours and delivery hours. The Head of Development had advised Members of the Committee that conditions were key in respect of this application.

 

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

12/30 SCHEME OF DELEGATION

The Assistant Director of Environment submitted a report to seek approval for the delegation of a power that was currently the responsibility of the Planning & Development Committee.

 

The power to request the stopping up or diversion of a Highway by the Secretary of State (s247 TCPA 1990) was currently delegated to the Planning & Development Committee by the Council. The purpose of the report was to pass that delegation to the Assistant Director of Environment for efficiency of operating the Highway function. The Assistant Director of Environment could then delegate the function to suitably qualified and competent staff.

 

ORDERED that the power to request the stopping up or diversion of a Highway by the Secretary of State (s247 TCPA 1990) be delegated to the Assistant Director of Environment for efficiency of operating the Highway function.
 

12/31 PLANNING APPEALS

The Director of Legal and Democratic Services presented a report, the purpose of which was to advise members of the findings of the Inspectorate appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, with regard to the following appeals:-

11 Ingleby Road, Middlesbrough - (M/FP/0512/12/P) - Appeal dismissed

1 Botany Way, Nunthorpe, Middlesbrough - (M/FP/0548/12/P) - Appeal dismissed

 

Copies of the decision notices for the appeals were attached to the report for Members’ information.

ORDERED that the report and its contents be noted.
 

12/32 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

12/33 ANY OTHER BUSINESS - DELEGATED POWERS

A number of Members had raised concerns regarding the number of applications for larger scale developments and hot food takeaways that had been determined via delegated authority. The Head of Development suggested that the Chair and the Vice Chair of the Planning & Development Committee be alerted when applications for larger scale developments or applications which were particularly sensitive were received.

 

It was also suggested that minor amendments to planning applications that had already been approved by Members should be brought back to Committee for approval. Members were reminded to check the weekly planning lists and alert the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning & Development Committee of any applications that Members considered should be determined by Committee.

 

NOTED
 

Powered by E-GENDA from Associated Knowledge Systems Ltd