Agenda item

Schedule – Page 7

 

Item 1 - 27 Cornfield Road – Page 9

 

Item 2 – 15 Albert Terrace – Page 43

 

Item 3 – Swatters Carr – Page 67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

23/0252/FUL, 27 Cornfield Road, Middlesbrough, TS5 5QJ, Erection of 1No 5 bed detached dwellinghouse with detached garage and associated boundary treatments. To include demolition of existing bungalow and boundary wall

 

Members were advised that the application site was 27 Cornfield Road located on a corner plot at the junction of Cornfield Road and The Crescent. The site was located within the Linthorpe Conservation Area and the Article 4 designated area. Currently within the site was a detached bungalow and detached garage to the side which both front onto Cornfield Road which was located to the south.

 

Members heard that the proposal sought for the demolition of the existing detached bungalow and garage and for the erection of a two and a half storey detached 5 bedroomed property with detached double garage to the site. The current vehicle access would remain from Cornfield Road with a wider access and installation of new access gates and boundary treatment to the front and side elevations.

 

The Development Control Manager advised that the application site was previously refused planning permission under delegated powers with a subsequent appeal dismissed in May 2022 under planning application 20/0500/FUL. The reasons the appeal was dismissed were that the development would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Linthorpe Conservation Area and would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would not accord with the development plan and there were no considerations of sufficient weight to justify making a decision otherwise.

 

It was advised that following a neighbour consultation exercise there had been 6 objection letters and 2 support letters. The objections related primarily to the loss of privacy, overbearing impact, loss of light, noise and disturbance, overdevelopment, not in keeping with the conservation area and properties within the street scene, setting a precedent, revisions being minimal changes, not addressing the previous reasons for refusal and the reasons the appeal was dismissed, loss of trees, shortage of bungalows, highway safety issues.

 

The support comments related to the existing property being empty for a considerable time and the design of the bungalow not in keeping and having a negative impact on the conservation area and the proposal being in keeping and enhancing the Conservation area.

 

The Development Control Manager stated that Council Officers had worked with the applicant and the agent and the new application addressed the previous concerns.  The new application was very much in keeping with adjacent properties, the design addressed the inspectors concerns and the design was much improved.

 

A Member queried if the trees on the site would be protected, the Development Control Manager advised that the trees would be automatically protected and the applicant would need to apply to remove or carryout work on the trees.

 

A Member questioned whether the site would be overdeveloped the Development Control Manager advised that the Planning Inspector felt it would not be an overdevelopment of the plot.

 

The agent for the applicant addressed the Committee and advised the new application would improve the site and that the design of the bungalow currently on the site had a negative impact on the area.  The concerns raised regarding the impact on the property 4a had been addressed by moving the proposed building further away.  The agent stated that there had been six major revisions to the original application to address concerns including better spaces, distancing and building design.

 

ORDERED: that, the application be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report.

 

24/0055/COU, 15, Albert Terrace, Middlesbrough, TS1 3PA, change of use of from dwellinghouse (C3) to 7 Bed HMO (Sui Generis) including external alterations to the detached garage

 

Members were advised that the application was for conversion of an end terraced property at 15 Albert Terrace.  The application site was located within a predominantly residential street and was within the Albert Park and Linthorpe Road Conservation Area.

 

The Development Control Manager advised of the following external changes to the building:

 

·        Replacement of the single roof light on the front elevation with three individual conservation roof lights

·        Installation of obscure glazing panel on the front ground floor bay window

·        Installation of two conservation roof lights on the main rear elevation roof and two conservation roof lights on the single storey rear off-shoot.

·        Bricking up of existing high-level window on the single storey ground floor off-shoot

 

Members heard that the application was supported by a Heritage Statement.

 

Members were advised that revised plans had been submitted which had reduced the number of bedrooms from 9 originally proposed to 7 and had removed the conversion of the outbuilding.

 

Following consultation there had been no comments received following the neighbourhood consultation and press release.  Objections had been received from the Ward Councillors.

 

The Development Control Manger stated that the external changes were considered minimal and would not materially alter the character and appearance of the building or the Albert Park and Linthorpe Road Conservation Area.

 

Members were informed that the building would be removed from the residential parking scheme which would prevent occupants from applying for parking permits which would remove any additional parking pressures resulting from the proposed change to the building.  The developer had agreed to fund the required works to amend the Traffic Regulation Order which would be implemented by the Local Authority.

 

The Development Control Manager stated that the Nutrient Neutrality credits had not been received but should be issued over the coming weeks, he advised that if Members were minded to approve the application a condition could be added that if the Nutrient Neutrality credits were not received within 2 months the application would be refused.

 

A Member raised concerns in respect of the size of the bedrooms and queried if the application could be reduced to 6 bedrooms, the Development Control Manager stated that the bedrooms were of adequate size.  The Member raised concerns over rooms being small and one of the bedrooms having a separate bathroom off a communal hallway indicating low quality accommodation.  The Member also asked if a condition to landscape the garden could be added if Members were minded to approve, the Development Control Manager confirmed that this was a reasonable requirement.

 

Members discussed the lack of parking and questioned if the area at the rear of the building could be used as parking it was advised that the space at the rear of the property would be unsuitable for parking due to the narrow alleyway.  It was advised that the Design Guide does not having parking as a standard for houses of multiple occupation.  A Member commented that the parking restrictions were put in place to stop students etc from parking in the area and that the current restrictions were between 8am-6pm Monday to Friday so it would not stop people parking outside of these timeframes.

 

ORDERED: that, the application be refused due to insufficient parking and the impact that this would have on other residents, provision of low quality accommodation and the lack of mitigation in relation to nutrient neutrality. 

 

24/0340/FUL, The Swatters Carr, 228 Linthorpe Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 3QW, Installation of outdoor seating area to side of premises to include moveable furniture and moveable planters, barriers, and alteration / introduction of openings within elevations.

 

Members were advised that the application sought planning approval to part pedestrianise Victoria Road, south of the site to create an outdoor seating area

Which would also include moveable planters and barriers, it was also advised that new openings and vertical glazing were proposed to the side elevation of the building.  The outdoor seating area would operate between the hours of 9am-10pm.  The Development Control Manager stated that there was a beer garden already at the front of the building. 

 

Members were advised that the location, scale and design of the external seating area were considered acceptable in relation to the existing property and its surroundings.  The seating area would extend and compliment the existing use which would add to the vitality and viability of the area and would not harm the function or the character of the town centre.

 

Members heard that two objections had been received from 2 residents and a third from the Ward Councillor with regards to noise, loss of car parking spaces, anti-social behaviour and issues relating to fly tipping and improper waste storage. 

 

The Development Control Manager advised that the proposal was considered to be an acceptable form of development fully in accordance with National and Local policy and therefore recommended for approval.

 

A Member queried about what the plan was for the wasteland near the application site it was advised by the Development Control Manager that a 7/8 storey student accommodation had previously been approved but this was believed to have now lapsed it was advised that heavy planters would be in place to prevent vehicle access and the space would still be there so future development could go ahead.

A Member questioned who would take responsibility to maintain the highways, it was advised that the Council would be responsible under the Highways Act.  The Council would decided which materials would be used the Development Control Manager advised that similar materials used on Linthorpe Road would be used.  A Member asked the Development Control Manager to clarify who would be paying for the highways work the Highways Officer who was in attendance confirmed that the costs would fall to the applicant.  Once the highways had been completed the work would be signed of by the Highways Authority and the land would remain an adopted highway.

 

It was queried whether the applicant should pay rent for the additional land it was advised that this would be dealt with through the licensing process and this was not a material planning consideration, a section 115 license would determine the gees and charges.

 

ORDERED: that, the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.