Item 1 -
Land at Hemlington Lane - Page 11
Item 2 -
Cleveland Cottage - Page 43
Item 3 - 20
Fountains Drive - Page 61
Minutes:
The Head of Planning submitted plans deposited as applications to
develop land under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and reported thereon.
19/0355/FUL
Erection of 18 no bungalows with associated access and landscaping works on Land
at Hemlington Lane, Middlesbrough
for Mr K Shannon
Item deferred for the following reasons:
To allow assessment of wildlife feature found on site.
21/0041/FUL Erection of 1 no dwellinghouse
(demolition of existing property) at Cleveland Cottage, Brass Castle Lane,
Middlesbrough TS8 9ED for Mr and Mrs Spriggs
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 Development Control Manager advised that permission was sought for
the erection of a large detached two-storey dwelling on the site of an existing
dwelling and associated garage, which were to be demolished. The development would largely maintain the
area and character of the existing property.
Members heard that following a consultation exercise, there had been no
objections received. Two representations
had been received with comments on the proposed development, which raised
issues pertaining to builders’ operations, the scheduling of construction
activities, and to the septic tank serving the site. One letter of support had been received and a
Ward Councillor had also supported the proposed development.
The application site was located outside of the limits of development,
however, owing to the pre-existing dwellinghouse,
officers were satisfied with the proposals and the recommendation was to
approve the application, with conditions.
A Member made reference to the issues that had been raised during the
consultation exercise and queried what assurances
could be given to demonstrate that these had been taken into account. In response, the Committee was advised that:
The Applicant’s Planning Consultant was elected to address the
Committee, in support of the application.
In summary, the Planning Consultant:
·
Provided details of the Applicant’s background and commitment to
Middlesbrough.
·
Commented on the style of the property and its in keeping with
properties of similar size across the Tees Valley area.
·
Indicated that, owing to the existence of a dwellinghouse
on the site, the principle of the application had been accepted; the site was
now ready for redevelopment into a new home for the 21st Century.
·
Hedgerows around the property would be retained and there were plans for
new planting throughout the site.
·
There were no objections from neighbours; any issues regarding drainage
could comfortably be addressed with no adverse effects to the area’s drainage
or neighbouring properties.
In response to an enquiry from a Member regarding the entrance to the
proposed development, the Planning Consultant indicated that this would remain
the same.
A Member queried the age of the original house. In response, the Planning Consultant advised
that it was a circa. 1950s property, which had been developed over the years.
ORDERED that the application be Approved on Condition for the reasons
set out in the report.
21/0290/FUL Erection of 1 no detached dwelling at 20 Fountains Drive,
Middlesbrough TS5 7LJ for Mr J Bradley
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
Development Control Manager advised that planning
permission was sought for the erection of a two-storey, four bedroomed detached
dwelling on the section of residential garden located immediately to the north
(at the side) of 20 Fountains Drive in Acklam. Vehicular access to the property would be
provided directly from Sledmere Drive.
The application site was located on a corner plot at the junction
of Sledmere Drive and Fountains Drive in a predominantly
residential area of Acklam; aerial and street views
were shown to Members. The frontage of
the property would face towards Fountains Drive with a section of close boarded
boundary fencing positioned along part of the side boundary facing Sledmere Drive.
It was explained to Members that following submission of the
original plans, concerns raised by officers in respect of the scale and
position of the development had been addressed.
The plans were amended to reduce the width of the two-storey element of
the dwelling by 1.5 metres, and to provide a reduced hipped roof detail on the
rear elevation. The proposed side
boundary fence had been relocated to be set away from the pavement along
Fountains Drive/Sledmere Drive.
The Committee heard that the application site had been granted
previous approval for a detached two-storey dwelling and a separate application
for a dormer bungalow on the site, and the principle of residential development
in this location was established as a result.
It was explained that there would be changes to the existing
property should this application be successful.
The proposal would include the demolition of the existing detached
garage, relocation of the existing entrance door and first floor bedroom window
from the side elevation to the front elevation, and the installation of a front
driveway at the host property at 20 Fountains Drive. Such changes fell within the permitted
development regulations and therefore did not require planning permission.
Following consultation, 42 objections had been received from
neighbouring residents, together with objections from Ward Councillors S Dean
and E Polano.
There had been two support comments received.
In summary, the objections related to:
·
The scale of the development;
·
Loss of privacy and amenity;
·
Overbearing impact, noise and dust;
·
Impact on the character and appearance of the street scene;
·
Highway safety;
·
Construction traffic;
·
Drainage;
·
A lack of need for the housing; and
·
Devaluation of neighbouring properties.
The support comments related to:
·
The proposal improving the current Anti-Social Behaviour on
this section of land;
·
Speeding concerns being addressed separately;
·
Drainage issues being unrelated to this property; and
·
The dwelling building line followed those of Sledmere Drive and Fountains Drive.
It was indicated that, from the officers’ perspective, the revised
design and reduced scale of the dwelling were considered to achieve a property
which was in keeping with the scale, design and character of the existing
semi-detached two-storey properties along Fountains Drive. The separation distances, location of the
dwelling and the position of the windows/doors relative to other properties
were considered to ensure the privacy and amenity of the neighbouring
properties would not be significantly affected.
The proposed vehicular access to the rear of the property from Sledmere Drive was sufficient distance from the junction to
ensure no impact on the existing visibility splays, whilst providing adequate
parking provision for the proposed dwelling with no additional impacts on
highway safety. The development was
considered to be in accordance with Policies DC1, CS4, CS5 and H11 and was
recommended for approval subject to conditions.
In response to an enquiry regarding the entrance to the proposed
development, the Development Control Manager advised that the entrance to the
front would be utilised for pedestrian access; a further door on the side of
the property, accessed via a utility room, would provide access to the side of
the house and to a parking area at the rear side.
A Member made reference to previous planning applications that had
been approved and queried potential reasons as to why development works had not
taken place. In response, the
Development Control Manager advised that if the site was able to accommodate
the proposed development, that was the main priority; whether or not an
applicant proceeded to continue with the development was subject to individual
circumstance.
A Member made reference to highways and visibility and the issues
raised by objectors; a request for clarification regarding the views of MBC
Highways was made. In response, the
Development Control Manager advised that the Council’s Highways Officers had
commented that forward visibility around the junction met the requirements that
would be expected for this type of junction.
In addition, there was the appropriate amount of parking available
relevant to the Council’s design guide and was therefore, on Highways grounds,
acceptable.
A Member made reference to an issue raised in respect of visitor
parking. It was queried whether there
were any possible issues or restrictions in the garden being reduced to allow
for further parking on the site. In
response, the Development Control Manager advised that the Highways guide for
parking was three spaces for this type of property. Visitor parking was more relevant on bigger
schemes where an array of visitor parking was required. This was an existing set of streets where
there was visitor parking for all properties, and arguably some of that would
take place in the highway. There would
be space available at the front of the property for further parking to be
provided if it was necessary, but from the Council’s perspective and the
requirements of the planning policy for parking provision, it did meet those
standards.
Two
Ward Councillors for Acklam Ward and a resident of a
neighbouring property spoke in objection to the application. In summary, the objections related to:
With regards to the issue raised in respect of the hard standing,
the Development Control Manager explained that it was not uncommon for a
pathway to the front door and a driveway to be included in development plans, and
therefore this would not raise any concerns from an officer perspective.
With regards to the fencing that would be erected around the side
of the property, Members were directed to the slides shown during the
presentation which illustrated where this would be sited. The plans referenced a 2m high privacy fence
to create a private garden area associated with that property. It was explained that if Members held any
particular concerns with the position or height of the fence, that could
potentially be amended through assignment of a condition to deal with that
particular issue. However, it was
indicated that the fence was set off from the front boundary of the plot with
the pavement, and also set in from the side boundary, meaning that it would be
set back from the road on both sides. An
amendment to the position of the fence had been made during the application
process.
In response to a Ward Councillor’s request for clarification
regarding conversion of the grassed area at the front of the existing property
into hard standing for car parking, it was confirmed that this would be the
case. The Ward Councillor subsequently
made reference to the existing property and queried whether this would be a
smaller plot in comparison to the new development. In response, it was confirmed that this would
be the case.
In response to a general comment regarding objections, the Legal
representative and Head of Planning advised that objections must have related
to material considerations, and it was a matter of their quality rather than
quantity. It was explained that the
number of objections demonstrated strength of feeling, but did not alter the
fact of what was or was not a material planning consideration. Members were advised not to take into account
non-material considerations when making their decisions, and were directed to
the Planning Consideration and Assessment section of the policy guidance for
information.
A Member commented on the potential to reduce the height of the
boundary fence at particular sections in order for the development to be more
in keeping with other properties in the area, but commented that visibility
would still be reduced if 6ft fencing was to be erected on the corner. A Member also commented that a condition
around fencing could potentially be applied if the Committee deemed it
appropriate to do so.
ORDERED that the
application be REFUSED for the
following reasons:
In
the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed property, as a result
of its scale, design and position, will have a detrimental impact on the open
character of the area and on the amenity of the adjacent properties, contrary
to Local Plan Policy DC1.
Supporting documents: