Agenda item

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

 

24/0463/RES, Hemlington Grange Phase 3B & 4B, Middlesbrough, Reserved Matters application (Phase 3b and 4b)for the erection of 225 no. dwellings, landscaping, SUDs basins and associated infrastructure on application ref. M/FP/0082/16/P

 

Members were advised that permission was sought for the erection of 225 dwellings on the Hemlington Grange housing development site.

 

The site was located within the wider Hemlington Grange site which had outline consent for approximately 1200 dwellings.  The site was currently under construction with the majority of the approved dwellings complete.

 

This application sought reserved matters consent for the last two phases, phases 3b and 4b.

 

The Planning Officer stated that the site was allocated for housing in the Local Plan.  The application site was Phase 3b and 4b of the wider site which benefited from outline consent for residential development therefore the principal of residential dwellings on this site was deemed as acceptable.

 

Members were advised that it was considered that the proposed development would provide a good mix of dwelling types which were of a high-quality design and materials, in an attractive landscaped setting with an appropriate layout that would complement the earlier phases of the development.  The Planning Officer informed Members that the development would not result in a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of existing local residents and provided good sustainable transport links.

 

It was advised that following a consultation exercise a petition was received in objection to the development.  The petition was signed by 28 residents from 16 properties.  Further objections were received from residents from 9 properties including the lead petitioner. 

 

The Planning Officer confirmed that Stainton and Thornton Community Council and Stainton and Thornton Parish Council had been consulted on the application and had no objection to the principle of the development as the site fell within the Housing Local Plan adopted in 2014 as Policy H23 Hemlington Grange.

 

Concerns were raised regarding green corridors and sections of woodland being removed.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the masterplan approved as part of the hybrid application gave outline consent for the phases subject of this application and clearly identified the green corridors required in part g of the allocation policy.

 

The proposed development included the green corridors approved in the masterplan.  The masterplan also clearly identified the development parcels.  The area of woodland referred to was an area of self-seeded vegetation and trees that had grown in the development parcel, outside of the green corridors.

 

It was also raised that the accompanying paperwork for the meeting, committee report, page 2 stated that the proposed 225 dwellings included 36 three-storey three bed dwellings and 36 three-storey four bed dwellings.  The adopted Stainton and Thornton Neighbourhood Plan 2-21-2035 Policy ST8: Design Principles for New Residential Developments Part 1.5 be 2.5 storeys or less unless there was a clear design justification for developments in excess of two storeys.  The Planning Officer confirmed that in relation to house types all properties within the development which had 3 floors had the third floor located within the roof space and was therefore classed as 2.5 storey dwellings in line with the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

The Planning Officer advised that consultations were sent to Ward Councillors from Stainton and Thornton, Hemlington and Coulby Newham and no responses were received.

 

Members were advised that following the completion of the committee report further comments were received from Natural England who had objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

 

• Have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site
• Damage or destroy the interest features for which the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest had been notified
• Further evidence had been requested that the mitigation land proposed offsite from the development had been used to farm pigs for at least 6 of the previous 10 years
• The applicant had provided information from the mitigation landowner which provided sufficient evidence that the farm had farmed pigs for over 10 years however Natural England’s view was that this did not provide sufficient evidence that the mitigation land proposed had been used to rear pigs for at least 6 of the previous 10 years

 

The Planning Officer advised Members that the objection from Natural England did not alter the planning assessment in relation to the mitigation, information and evidence that had been submitted by the applicant.  The officer recommendation is for approval of the application subject to conditions and legal agreements to secure the required nutrient neutrality mitigation.

 

A Member stated that residents had assumed wrongly that the woodland would remain and that it was home to wildlife such as deer, badgers and frogs.

 

A Member queried whether there would be community facilities on the site it was advised that there was established community facilities in Coulby Newham that would serve Hemlington Grange.  It was advised that there was one children’s play area on site and a number of children’s play areas along the corridors.

 

ORDERED that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report and legal agreements to secure the required nutrient neutrality mitigation.

 

25/0280/COU, 50 Outram Street, Middlesbrough, TS1 4EG, Change of use from dwelling (C3) to 3 bed HMO (C4)

 

Members were advised that the application sought planning approval to convert the existing dwellinghouse to a bedroom HMO.

 

The application site was a 2 storey, 2 bedroom, mid terrace property that was located on Outram Street just off Parliament Road.

 

Members were advised that an objection had been received from a local Ward Councillor which included impacts on area character or overall nature of the scheme as a result of layout, density, design and visual appearance, highways, overlooking and loss of privacy, capacity of physical infrastructure and incompatible or unacceptable uses.

 

The Development Control Manager advised that the Council’s Interim Policy on the Conversion and Sub-Division of Buildings for Residential Uses sets out a number of criteria that would be of relevance to the proposed development such as the building should be capable of providing the number of units proposed to an acceptable standard of accommodation, with adequate levels of privacy and amenity, meeting the Government’s Technical Housing Standards.  In addition, there should be adequate provision and access to parking (cycle/and or vehicle), refuse storage and collection, and amenity space were deemed necessary.

 

Members heard that the existing floor plans did not label the rooms although based on the plans it appeared that the existing property comprised on the ground floor of a living room, dining room, kitchen and bathroom along with 2 bedrooms situated on the first floor.  The property had limited outdoor amenity space to the rear, being a very slender rear yard and due to the property being street terrace had no front garden or parking associated with it.

 

Members were advised that the proposals showed the ground floor to be partitioned to create a bedroom to the front with the window directly onto the pavement with the dining room, kitchen and bathroom to remain a communal space.  A further 2 bedrooms would be located on the first floor.  Members were advised to note that none of these bedrooms would have an en-suite and the only bathroom would be the relatively small existing bathroom on the ground floor which was served directly off the kitchen.  Members were advised of a wording error within the report relating to the Council’s interim policy whereby it was reported that the interim policy stated that two and three storey dwellings must include enough space for one bathroom and one additional W.C or shower room and as a result this application was contrary to the policy.  The Development Control Manager advised that this was in fact text taken from the Government’s Nationally Described Space Standards.  The Development Control Manager also advised that the property had a particularly small rear yard with alleyway behind which allowed rear access.

 

Members were advised that all of the bedrooms had windows and thereby served by natural light and rooms were presented and laid out well, with bedrooms large enough for basic furniture. However, it was noted that the kitchen was too small to act as a dining kitchen and the dining room was too small to also act as a communal living room, when taking into account movement space between doors. The lack of larger communal space or a separate communal living room placed likely demands on the bedrooms also doubling as a living room / living space for each of the future occupiers and although they are of a suitable size for a single person’s bedroom, they were considered to be too limited to also reasonably provide the function of a living room given the need for movement space within. In addition, the lack of a separate W.C and the bathroom being served off the kitchen was considered to be a relatively poor provision. 

 

The Development Control Manager stated that the proposed conversion was therefore considered to be lacking somewhat in these regards, being contrary to Local Plan Policy and contrary to paragraph 135a of the NPPF, which stated that it should be ensured that developments “will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;”

 

Members were advised that there was no bin provision in the rear alley and secure cycle storage and recreational space could not be achieved.  The Council’s Interim Policy on the conversion and sub-division of dwellings required that “the proposed development would provide adequate provisions of, and access to, parking (cycle and/or vehicle, as appropriate), refuse storage and collection, and amenity space were deemed necessary”

 

Members discussed the lack of amenities and lack of provisions in the application.

 

ORDERED, that the application be refused for the following reasons the proposed HMO does not provide an acceptable standard of accommodation and adequate means of amenity contrary to the Councils Interim Conversion Policy, Local Plan Policies and para. 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.