Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on 14 April 2023 were submitted and approved as a correct record.

Schedule – Page 9

Item 1 – 42 Cedar Drive – Page 11

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

22/0669/COU Change of use from residential property (C3) to residential respite (C2) at 42, Cedar Drive, Middlesbrough, TS8 9BY for Terriann Harrison, Walkison Care

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

The application site was a two-storey residential dwellinghouse situated at the southern end of Cedar Drive in Thornton, at the edge of the village. The property was accessed from the adopted road via a private driveway, which served four properties in total.

To the north of the application site there were residential properties within Cedar Drive and Thornton village. To the east, west and south there was agricultural land and fields.

The site was located within an established residential area and the application proposed a residential use, which was appropriate/established within the location. Planning permission was sought for the change of use of the property from a residential dwellinghouse (C3 use class) to a residential respite care home (C2 use class), which was intended to provide respite care for up-to 6 people at any one time. The proposal was indicated as having around 12 staff associated with it, with only 3 or 4 staff members being there between the hours of 8am to 8pm and a single staff member being there overnight. It was commented that no alterations to the external appearance of the building were proposed.

Members heard that, following the consultation period, 11 objections and 2 comments had been received. The main concerns that had been highlighted referenced vehicular access, staff parking and general traffic movements at the site and along Cedar Drive. Further details in respect of the objections were detailed at paragraphs 14 and 15 of the submitted report.

Stainton and Thornton Parish Council had no objection to the application but had requested that a condition be included to ensure all staff members and visitors parked within the residential curtilage of the property.

The main issues the committee were asked to consider related to the likely outward impacts of the proposed use on the surrounding properties/uses and land.

It was commented that the proposal would cause no significant intensification of use. In addition, the level of use associated with a residential property providing respite care, would not be dissimilar to that of a residential dwellinghouse.

Noting the expected number of staff members and service users (at any one time) and the provision of parking spaces within the property’s curtilage, it was considered that the number of anticipated vehicles could be accommodated at the site without the need for parking on Cedar Drive, thereby preventing impacts which could have potentially been detrimental to the amenities of nearby residents. It was commented that there was sufficient parking spaces for 6 vehicles within the curtilage and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/3

The Head of Planning 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

Planning Appeals

Appeal Ref: APP/W0734/W/22/3313867 Land at Low Lane, Middlesbrough TS5 8EH - Dismissed

The Head of Planning advised that the Planning Inspectorate had held a hearing on 3 May and undertaken site visits on 2 and 4 May 2023.

The scheme proposed was a commercial development (Use Class E) including access, parking, and associated infrastructure and development.

The main issues in the appeal were:

a)     whether the Appellant had satisfied the sequential and impact tests for retail development;

b)     the effect of the proposed development on local highways, transport conditions, and accessibility; and

c)      whether the proposed development was in an acceptable location, would be of an acceptable quality and provide a suitable environmental impact.

The Inspector had concluded that the proposed scheme:

·        was the wrong development in the wrong place;

·        would not follow the aspirations expressed by the Royal Town Planning Institute to provide for well-connected developments; and

·        had the hallmarks of being a scheme designed to maximise floorspace rather than truly provide a local centre for the nearby residential areas.

The Inspector had stated that the proposal was in conflict with the development plan, the policies of which were in broad alignment with the NPPF. It had also been commented that there were no material considerations which were sufficient to outweigh that conflict.

NOTED