Item 1 -
Whimsey Nook - Page 9
Item 2 -
Land at Centre Square - Page 17
Minutes:
The
Head of Planning submitted plans deposited as applications to develop land
under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
21/0064/COU
Retrospective extension to residential curtilage with boundary fencing and wall
to front at Whimsey Nook, Stainton Way, Middlesbrough TS8 9DF for Mr
& Mrs K Wanless
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
retrospective planning permission was sought for the change of use of land to
residential curtilage and erection of a boundary wall to the front. Extension
to the curtilage had taken place on both the side and rear boundaries of the
site, with a total land take of approximately 719m2.
Whimsey Nook was a relatively isolated property located on the southern side of
Stainton Way. The site was bounded on both sides and to the rear by open land.
Cleveland Community Safety Hub was located to the west, the access road to the
Community Safety Hub and the wider Hemlington Grange
site was to the east with residential development beyond.
The site of the existing property
(prior to the unauthorised expansion of residential
curtilage) was not allocated for any specific purposes in the Local Plan and
was in use for residential purposes. Land immediately abutting the site to the
west, east and south was allocated as employment land and was part of the Hemlington Grange site identified in the Development Plan.
Consideration needed to be given to
the principle of the change of use and whether that would restrict future
development of the adjacent site, thereby hampering the implementation of the
Council’s policies in relation to the wider Hemlington
Grange area.
It
was considered that although the proposed use did not accord with the uses set
out in Policy H24 of adopted Development Plan, the extension of the curtilage
of that existing residential premises would not unduly impact the potential for
future development of the wider site. Nor would it prevent the implementation
of the Council’s policies set out in the Local Plan. As such, the change of use
to residential curtilage was considered to be acceptable in principle.
The Head of Planning advised that
the recommendation was to approve the application, with conditions.
A Member raised a query regarding
the purchasing of the land. In response, the Head of Planning advised that it
was understood that the Applicant had been in negotiations with the Council,
had agreed terms for purchasing the land and that planning permission was
required before the transaction to purchase the land could be completed.
In response to a Member’s query
regarding the site being currently allocated as employment land, the Head of
Planning advised that the use was under review and it was envisaged that the
allocation would be changed to residential use.
The Applicant was elected to
address the committee, in support of the application.
In summary, the Applicant advised
that:
·
When the property was
purchased in 2014, the existing boundary line was a combination of thick,
overgrown bushes and trees that faced onto an open field area.
·
When removing the
existing boundary line, markers were placed on the outer edge of the boundary
line.
·
4 years later
notification was received of encroachment onto Council land.
·
Upon receiving that unforeseen
news, the Council was contacted immediately to address/resolve the issue.
·
The encroachment was
initially disputed, however, regrettably it had been difficult to pin point the
actual boundary line given the fact the bungalow was rural and faced onto a
wide open field area.
·
Arrangements had been
made to purchase the land and heads of terms had been accepted and signed, on
the understanding that the land would be transferred from agricultural land to
garden use.
·
It then came to light
that the land was allocated as employment land and not agricultural, meaning
the application required consideration by the Planning and Development
Committee.
·
Given the circumstances
of the unintentional and regrettable encroachment and the arrangements being
made to purchase the land, it was hoped that approval would be granted.
ORDERED that the
application be Approved on
Condition for the reasons set out in the report.
21/0144/OUT
Erection of 3 office buildings (Class E(c)) with potential for part ground
floor use for restaurant/cafe (Class E(b)), and new public realm and associated
landscaping, car and cycle parking with servicing including refuse storage and
substations at Land at Central Gardens, Middlesbrough,
TS1 2AZ for Ashall Projects Ltd
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 the application sought outline planning
permission for three commercial office buildings (use class E(c)) with
potential for restaurant/cafe elements (use class E(b))
at ground floor level. The overall development would create nearly 11,942
square metres of office space and 540 square metres of restaurant/cafe space.
As the application was outline with all matters reserved (layout, scale,
access, landscaping and appearance), indicative drawings had been submitted to
illustrate how the proposed development might be arranged.
The
overall site area of this outline application pertained to three separate sites
within the Centre Square area of Middlesbrough town centre.
The
first site was a large rectangular-like parcel of land positioned to the south
of the Combined Law Courts, to the west of constructed ‘Building 2’, to the
north of Fountains Court and Grange Road, and to the east of Mima art gallery. The parcel of land would accommodate two
buildings: ‘Building 3’ and ‘Building 5’.
The
second site was a smaller, linear rectangular plot of land situated at the
northeast corner of Centre Square, to the east of the Combined Courts. That
would accommodate ‘Building 4’.
The
third site was a small rectangular parcel of land situated to the south of the
approved
‘Building
6’ development, to the west of 168 Borough Road (Race Furniture) and to the
east of government buildings along Borough Road.
The
principle of office development (with associated ancillary uses) was deemed to
be acceptable in the location. The reserved matters application(s) would
provide the detail of the architectural style and overall design and would
determine how the development fits within the wider Centre Square area.
Following the consultation period,
twelve letters of objection had been received at the time of writing and a
summary of the points made and issues raised was contained in the submitted
report. There had been no objections from statutory consultees.
The application was also the
subject of a petition signed by 519 persons, initiated by Middlesbrough
and Redcar Friends of the Earth, which stated:
·
There was very little
nature in the city centre. Albert Park was the
nearest real space at 1 kilometre away.
·
Since lockdown, nature had
become more important to the public and improved their mental well-being.
·
Were the offices
needed? More people would be working part-time or at home following the
pandemic.
·
Instead of new office
buildings, old office buildings should be renovated, which would be cheaper and
more environmentally friendly.
·
The pond provided a
pleasant environment.
·
The area was being
rundown. It would have looked good if not earmarked for development.
An addendum report was tabled, at
the meeting, for the committee’s consideration. The addendum report contained
information on additional consultation responses, comments from the Council’s
Highways Officer and the revised location and masterplan.
Members were advised that a similar
development had been approved in 2017 (17/0195/OUT). The previously approved
outline application was for ‘five commercial office buildings with part ground
floor cafés, public realm works, landscaping, car parking, cycle parking and
other ancillary development’. That approved development was of a similar scale
and massing, and on very similar red line boundaries within Centre Square. Two
of the five approved buildings had been constructed, Buildings 1 and 2, whilst
the other three remained unimplemented. Members heard that the outline
application, submitted and approved in 2017, had since expired.
The
sites were currently occupied by greenspace, a pond and part of the Centre
Square park (Central Gardens). All were within
Middlesbrough town centre, part of a number of municipal and court buildings in
an area called Centre Square. The sites were in close proximity to the Town
Hall, the Empire Theatre, Central Library, the statue of John Vaughan and the
monument to Sir Samuel Sadler, which were all Grade II Listed.
The
principle of the development was something that Historic England was content
with and that represented an important opportunity to work with and enhance
Middlesbrough’s sense of place. Concerns had been initially raised over the
height of Building 3, but the revised scheme saw the height of that building
reduced to 4/5 storeys. Building 5 had been re-introduced to compensate for the
loss of floorspace but there had been no objections
to that building.
Due to the overall scale of the
proposed development and its siting on existing green space and potential
wildlife habitats, it was important to ensure that there were no adverse
impacts on any protected species, flora and fauna, and that the development
provided biodiversity net gain.
Since approval of the last
application in 2017, the Government published a revised version of the NPPF,
which strengthened policy wording on biodiversity net gain. An Ecological
Impact Assessment had been submitted in support of the application to assess
any potential impacts. For the development site itself, the assessment
indicated that the habitats on site were typically of low conservation
importance and of local value only. The Council’s ecological consultant had
considered the report and agreed that the pond did not have significant
importance from an ecological perspective.
Although the existing grassland,
shrubs, trees and pond were considered only to be ornamental and of low
conservation and local value, it was not accepted by officers that the current
proposals provided biodiversity net gain. The initial landscaping proposals
(highly managed landscape space and water feature with treated water) for the
new development and the incorporation of some bird boxes were considered not to
equate to the habitat that was being lost.
Those concerns needed to be
addressed as part of any reserved matters application(s). Consequently, it was
considered that a suitably worded condition for biodiversity net gain could be
attached to any planning approval at the outline stage and its requirements met
in the subsequent application(s) for the reserved matters.
A Member raised a query regarding
the economic benefits of the development. The Head of Planning advised that through the development of the Local Plan and engagement with
businesses, it had been identified that some offices were not fit for purpose.
Therefore, the proposed development would contribute toward economic growth,
increase footfall and achieve biodiversity net gain. It was added that, on 13
July 2021, the Executive had approved the adoption of the Green and Blue
Infrastructure Strategy 2021 -2037. The strategy aimed to improve access to
green and blue infrastructure and provide greening features in
the town centre. To protect and enhance the ecology
and biodiversity of the site and ensure the survival and protection of
important species, a suitably worded condition had been attached. The proposal of how the
Applicant intended to meet the requirements of that condition, would be provided in the subsequent application(s) for the reserved
matters.
With regards to the availability of
wider open space to serve the public and workers, some would be incorporated as
part of the development. A significant amount of open space remained on Centre
Square that would be available to the public to access and enjoy.
The scheme did include the
provision of an area of open space that would be publicly accessible between
Building 3 and the Law Courts. Whilst that would clearly not, in quantitative
terms, replace that lost to development it would contribute to meeting some of
the needs expressed by the objectors for open space to meet public needs. It
was considered that, alongside the remaining Centre Square open space, the
biodiversity measures outlined and the economic benefits associated with the
proposal outweighed the loss of open space.
A discussion ensued and Members
highlighted the importance of the scheme being subject to biodiversity net gain
conditions to ensure that there would be no loss of biodiversity as a result of
the development.
The Agent was elected to address
the committee, in support of the application.
In summary, the Agent commented
that:
·
An outline application
for the development of 5 commercial office buildings had been approved in 2017,
two of the five approved buildings had been constructed whilst the other three
remained unimplemented. The current outline application had since expired.
·
The application sought
outline planning permission for three commercial office buildings and aimed to
attract new businesses and more spend within the local area.
·
The
Central sector had been identified as an appropriate location for offices.
·
The overall scale and
type of development proposed would evidently contribute towards reinforcing and
strengthening the role of the town centre as the
principal centre within the Tees Valley city region
and support the commercial role of the town centre.
·
There was a common
misconception in Middlesbrough that there was not a
demand for office space, however, the empty units in the town were not fit for
purpose and even with extensive investment to improve them they would not meet
the standards of the modern Grade A office and the requirements of modern
occupiers.
·
The Government had hubs
in the North East region, e.g. the Department for Education had offices in
Darlington.
·
The proposals were
considered to have a beneficial impact on the town centre
offer and on the economy.
·
The development would
appeal to high-value employers with a propensity to enhance the local economy
and bring approximately 1000 jobs to the town, 33% more than was originally
estimated.
Two Objectors were elected to
address the committee, in objection to the application.
In summary, the Objectors commented
that:
·
Since lockdown, nature
had become more important to the public and improved mental well-being.
·
An e-petition,
objecting to the development, had gained 519 signatures within a few days.
·
There was already over
1000 office spaces available for use.
·
The pond was a habitat
for wildlife, including swans and ducks, and brought biodiversity to the town centre.
·
The pond mitigated
against flood risk in the area.
·
The pond provided a
pleasant public space for Middlesbrough’s residents.
·
Young people and
families from
working class backgrounds utilised
the space regularly.
·
The open space was
vital for those suffering from mental health conditions.
·
Assessing the open
space and nature promoted higher levels of health and well-being, especially
throughout the pandemic.
·
There was no reason for
the loss of the pond and the recreational area, the Civic Centre site could be
built on.
·
There were very few
nature areas in the town centre for people to visit.
Given the comments made, a
discussion ensued and Members queried whether public space could be re-provided
by the development. The
Head of Planning commented that Condition 9 would be
amended to ensure that the lost open space would be replaced within the
development, given the health and well-being benefits to the local community.
The Locum Solicitor commented that
the issues raised by the Objectors were not material planning considerations
that could lawfully justify refusal of the application. Although the reserve
matters application would enable the committee to consider some of the issues raised,
the application requiring consideration by Members was merely seeking outline
planning permission for the development.
ORDERED that the application be Approved on Condition for
the reasons set out in the report and subject to the
amendment of Condition 9 as follows:
Soft Landscape Works
In accordance with a phased scheme of soft landscaping, which has first
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a
scheme of soft landscaping shall be implemented on the site for each building
hereby approved prior to its occupation or within 9 months of the substantial
completion of each building.
The scheme of soft landscaping, in addition to providing details of the
position, species and number of all new planting, the planting regime / methods
including the provision of root barriers and tree pits as necessary, shall also
demonstrate how new green space, of a type suitable to its setting and
location, that contributes to meeting the social and health needs of the
community, will be incorporated and integrated into the scheme to mitigate the
loss of that arising from the development.
Reason: In order to provide a high quality of development within a
prominent town centre location, and ensure adequate
re-provision of landscaping in accordance with the requirements of Local and
National Policy.
Supporting documents: