Agenda and minutes

Name of Member	Type of Interest	Item/Nature of Interest
Councillor D Branson	Non-Pecuniary	Agenda Item 5, Item 1, advocate for crossing on Brass Castle Lane adjacent to application site.
Councillor J Hobson	Non-Pecuniary	Agenda Item 5, Item 1,Ward Councillor
Councillor G Wilson	Non-Pecuniary	Agenda Item 7, planning appeal for 42 Cinderwood, Ward Councillor

 

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning and Development Committee, held on 6 November 2020, were submitted and approved as a correct record.

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

 

20/0199/FUL Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 69 dwellings (including 19no. bungalows) with open space and infrastructure at Land at Ford Close Riding Centre, Brass Castle Lane, Middlesbrough TS8 9EE for Stonebridge Homes and Susan Jamieson Ritchie

 

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 Head of Planning advised that permission was sought for the demolition of some existing buildings on the site and the erection of 69 dwellings, including 19 bungalows, with associated access, landscaping and infrastructure on land at the Ford Close Riding Centre to the east of Brass Castle Lane.

 

The site was located to the east of Brass Castle Lane, south east of the junction with Fulford Way, and comprised 5.5ha of open fields and mature woodland. Part of the site had an existing dwelling and buildings relating to the riding school located along the northeast boundary of the site. A telecommunications mast was located in the southeast corner of the site. The existing Eagle Park residential estate was located to the northwest of the site and the ongoing Grey Towers housing development was located to the southeast and northeast.

 

A woodland belt within the site was located to the south with housing past it, with further woodlands located outside the site to the northeast.

 

Permission was sought for the demolition of some of the existing buildings on the site and the erection of 69 dwellings. The dwellings proposed consisted of:

 

·        11 two bed bungalows;

·        8 three bed bungalows;

·        40 four bed two-storey houses; and

·        10 five bed two-storey houses.

 

In terms of consultation, the Local Authority had sent out 51 neighbourhood consultation letters. A total of 35 objections had been received from 25 properties. Only four of those properties were located within the immediate vicinity of the application site and had received a neighbourhood consultation letter.

 

The main issues raised by objectors included:

 

·        that proposal was in conflict with planning policy;

·        there was inadequate infrastructure to deal the scheme;

·        there would be an increase in traffic and congestion; and

·        there would be a detrimental impact on wildlife/ecology;

 

The principle of housing on the site had been approved through the allocation of the site in the adopted 2014 Housing Local Plan under policy H30. It was also recognised in the Marton West Neighbourhood Plan.

Policy H30 Land at Ford Close Riding Centre stated that:

 

'Planning permission will be granted for a high quality, high value executive residential development to provide a maximum of 50 dwellings, and associated access improvements.

Development proposals will be expected to:

 

·        provide a residential development that reflects the executive housing types within the surrounding area;

·        take account of the topography and features of the site in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20/24

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

Appeal Ref: APP/W0734/D/20/3251084 - 42 Cinderwood, Middlesbrough, TS3 9RH

 

Appeal Allowed

 

The development proposed was described as 'proposed single storey infill extension.'

 

The main issues were the effect of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the surrounding area and (ii) highway safety with regards to parking.

 

Appeal Ref: APP/W0734/D/20/3251710 - 6 Malvern Drive, Middlesbrough TS5 8JB

 

Appeal Allowed

 

The development proposed was described as 'double storey side extension.'

 

The main issue was the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

APP/W0734/D/20/3256067 - 75 Southwell Road, Middlesbrough TS5 6NQ

 

Appeal Dismissed

 

The development proposed was two storey side extension and dormer.

 

The main issues were:

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property; and

·         Whether the proposal would make suitable provision for car parking.

 

Appeal Ref: APP/W0734/W/20/3255427 - 4 The Crescent, Linthorpe, Middlesbrough TS5 6SE

 

Appeal Allowed

 

The condition in dispute was No 4 which stated that: Windows/doors - The materials of the windows and doors incorporated within the extension hereby approved shall be timber only.

 

The appeal site was located within the Linthorpe Conservation Area. Planning permission for a side extension to the dwelling included a condition requiring that windows and doors within the extension shall be timber only. The appellant had objected to that condition as he wished to use uPVC for the windows and doors subject to agreeing an appropriate design. The proposed condition related solely to the use of materials, and did not include controls relating to matters including design.

 

Taking the background into account, the main issue was whether the condition was reasonable or necessary in the interests of the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

 

In respect of each appeal, the Development Control Manager provided Members with details of the issues raised by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

NOTED