PLANNING COMMITTEE
Date: 4 April 2006
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORTS
Background Papers - Access to Information
The background papers used in preparing this schedule are the relevant application files the numbers of which appear at the head of each report. These files are available for inspection at the offices of the Environment, Regeneration & Housing Directorate, Killingworth Site, P.O. Box 113, Station Road, Killingworth.
Principles to guide members and officers in determining planning applications and making decisions
Interests of the whole community
Members of Planning Committee should determine planning matters in the interests of the whole community of North Tyneside.
All applications should be determined on their respective planning merits.
Members of Planning Committee should not prejudge planning applications nor do anything that may reasonably be taken as giving an indication of having prejudged planning applications before reading the Officers Report and attending the meeting of the Planning Committee and listening to the presentation and debate at the meeting. However, councillors act as representatives of public opinion in their communities and lobbying of members has an important role in the democratic process. Where members of the Planning Committee consider it appropriate to prejudge an application by publicly supporting or opposing it they should indicate this at the meeting, immediately prior to consideration of the application, and clearly state that they will not take part in the voting on it. This does not prevent any such member from speaking on the application.
Where members take this position they should ensure that the planning officers are informed , preferably in writing , so that their views can be properly recorded and included in the report to the Planning Committee.
All other members should have regard to these principles when dealing with planning matters and must avoid giving an impression that the Council may have prejudged the matter.
Planning Considerations
Planning decisions should be made on planning considerations and should not be based on immaterial considerations.
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as expanded by Government Guidance and decided cases define what matters are material to the determination of planning applications.
It is the responsibility of officers in preparing reports and recommendations to members to identify the material planning considerations and warn members about those matters which are not material planning matters.
Briefly, material planning considerations include:-
· North Tyneside Unitary Development Plan (adopted March 2002);
· Government Guidance contained in Strategic Planning Guidance, Circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes, Mineral Policy Guidance Notes, Regional Policy Guidance Notes and Ministerial announcements;
· non-statutory planning policies determined by the Council;
· statutory duty to pay special attention the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas;
· statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses;
· representations made by statutory consultees and other persons making representations in response to the publicity given to applications, to the extent that they relate to planning matters.
There is much case law on what are material planning considerations. The consideration must relate to the use and development of land.
Personal considerations and purely financial considerations are not on their own material; they can only be material in exceptional situations and only in so far as they relate to the use and development of land such as, the need to raise income to preserve a listed building which cannot otherwise be achieved.
The planning system does not exist to protect private interests of one person against the activities of another or the commercial interests of one business against the activities of another. The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers or neighbouring properties or trade competitors would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest.
Local opposition or support for the proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless that opposition or support is founded upon valid planning reasons which can be substantiated.
It will be inevitable that all the considerations will not point either to grant or refusal. Having identified all the material planning considerations and put to one side all the immaterial considerations, members must come to a carefully balanced decision which can be substantiated, if challenged on appeal.
Officers' Advice
All members should pay particular attention to the professional advice and recommendations from officers.
They should only resist such advice, if they have good reasons, based on land use planning grounds.
Lobbying of Planning Committee Members
While recognising that lobbying of members has an important role in the local democratic process, members of Planning Committee should ensure that their response is not such as to give reasonable grounds for their impartiality to be questioned or to indicate that the decision has already been made. If however, members of Committee express an opinion prior to the Planning Committee indicating that they have pre judged the consideration of an application, they should indicate this at the meeting prior to consideration of the application and clearly state that they will take no part in any voting on the application. This does not prevent any such member from speaking on the application.
Lobbying of Other Members
While recognising that lobbying of members has an important role in the local democratic process, all other members should ensure that their response is not such as to give reasonable grounds for suggesting that the decision has already been made by the Council.
Lobbying
Members of the Planning Committee should ensure that their response to any lobbying is not such as to give reasonable grounds for their impartiality to be questioned, unless they are intending to support or oppose an application and forgo their right to vote at the meeting. However all members of the Council should ensure that any responses do not give reasonable grounds for suggesting that a decision has already been made by the Council.
Members of the Planning Committee should not act as agents (represent or undertake any work) for people pursuing planning applications nor should they put pressure on officers for a particular recommendation.
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORTS
CONTENTS
1. / 05/03253/REM / RiversideLand And Buildings At Smiths Dock Appleby Street Dock Road Ind Est North Shields Tyne And Wear
2. / 05/03257/REM / Riverside
Land And Buildings South Of Burdon Main Row, North Shields, Tyne And Wear
3. / 05/03259/FUL / Riverside
Land East Of Ballast Hill Road, North Shields, Tyne And Wear
4
Planning agenda
Item No: / 1Application Nos: / 05/03257/REM, 05/03253/REM & 05/03259/FUL / Author: Jackie Palmer
Date received: / 23 September 2005 / (: 0191 219 2169
Target decision date: /
23 December 2005
/Ward: Riverside
Applications: 05/03257/REM, 05/03253/REM & 05/03259/FUL
Location: Former Smith's Dock and A&P (Tyne) ship repair yards, including Dock Road South and land bounded by Ballast Hill Road, Dock Road, Appleby Street, Burdon Main Row, Lawson Street, Coach Lane and Duke Street, North Shields
Proposal: Submission of reserved matters for siting, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping pursuant to outline permissions 04/03922/OUT & 04/03925/OUT and associated full permission for 3 additional dwellings and associated gardens and parking area.
Summary of development proposals
- Erection of 1220 dwellings in a mix of 210no. 3-5 bedroom town houses and 1010no. 1-3 bedroom apartments (including 30 units of affordable housing) in six distinct neighbourhoods;
associated retail (450sq.m) and food and drink floor space (1250sq.m);
on-site car parking and site infrastructure works, including the construction of the Riverside Link Road and pedestrian routes, including riverside promenade;
creation of public and private open space.
Applicant:
REGEN (NT) LLP, C/o Andy James Grainger Trust Plc Citygate St James' Boulevard Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 4JE
Agent:
Dickinson Dees (Jan Bessell), One Trinity Gardens Broad Chare Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 2HF
RECOMMENDATION: Application Permitted
INFORMATION
This report relates to three separate planning applications which relate to the proposed reclamation and redevelopment of the former North Shields ship yards. The applications (as referenced above) comprise three submissions with application site boundaries based on historic land ownership boundaries which dictated the earlier extent of the outline permissions.
Notwithstanding this, the redevelopment proposal is a single scheme which has not been constrained by application site boundaries. As such the scheme reads comprehensively and to avoid repetition, this report relates to all three of the application submissions and describes the development as a comprehensive scheme. The legal agreement attached to the outline permissions requires the development to be carried out in this comprehensive manner.
Conditions are attached as a separate schedule.
Government Policy
PPS 1 “Delivering Sustainable Development”
PPG 3 “Housing”
PPS 9 “Biodiversity & Geological Conservation”
PPG 13 “Transport”
PPG 15 “Planning & the Historic Environment”
PPG 16 “Archaeology & Planning”
PPS 23 “Planning & Pollution Control”
PPG 24 “Planning and Noise”
PPG 25 “Development and Flood Risk”
Development Plan Policy
Regional Spatial Strategy (formerly RPG 1)
North Tyneside Unitary Development Plan (March 2002)
Consultations/representations
In total (from initial and subsequent publicity on amended plans) 19 letters of representation, representing 15 addresses, including small businesses (addresses range from Tennyson Terrace, Collingwood Mansions, Brewery Bond, Hudson Street, Royal Quays and Linskill Terrace in North Shields, to Whitley Bay, Cullercoats and Hexham) have been received expressing the following concerns over the scheme. There is generally support for the redevelopment of the site in principle but objections to elements of the scheme and in particular the number and height of buildings. Comments are summarised below:
- object to the blocks at the southern end of the site. The justification for them (balancing northern blocks) is incorrect and illogical. A lower building would be more aesthetically pleasing. This block will prevent sunlight from the south reaching smaller blocks and natural light to other buildings. It will set a precedent for similar blocks on the adjoining site;
- loss of river views. Whilst discussed at public information days, the developer assured that channels of view were being created. The current plans now show the blocks within the docks with their highest end to the river. This is financially driven and the change to the plans is underhand;
- the use of the natural contours of the site is pleasing but the siting of an 11 storey block could block river views;
- there should be assurance that people will have full access to the riverside at all times;
- clarification is sought on the re-use of contaminated materials. Will this affect the water table and offshore wildlife areas ?;
- are flood defences adequate to deal with climate change ?
- volume of traffic at the Bull Ring where retail/commercial uses are focused and roads meet up combined with traffic on Duke Street. This could hinder access to the ferry. Also concerned about the Coach Lane roundabout which is the only access from Tennyson Terrace and already difficult to use;
- how will the shops impact on local businesses ?
- how will rats be controlled once the site is developed and they are disturbed ?
- the plans show restricted public access along the riverside with no mention of cyclists or access over the water-filled dock. On the opposite side of the river is a continuous path – copy this here. Future generations will curse if this opportunity for access is lost. The aim should be for a full public right of way from here to the Fish Quay. Do not repeat the mistake of Dolphin Quays;
- please look after the interests of local businesses so they are not affected by new development not of their making;
- access is limited given the number of homes and businesses. The entrance via the New Quay is narrow and also caters for ferry passengers. There is only a footpath on one side of the road;
- the other access is Dock Road but the idea of linking this to Tynemouth Road is flawed. Movement of all but essential vehicles through the Fish Quay should be discouraged;
- where will visitors park ?
- it makes no sense to step buildings up towards the river. The height would be more acceptable in a reverse configuration;
- the eleven storey block at the start of the bend will be a landmark and appropriate for this location;
- why is there no provision for the relocation of the ferry landing ?
- the scheme does not provide continuous high quality traffic free public access to the length of the regenerated waterfront and this is entirely unacceptable. Future generations deserve uninterrupted access where achievable. A developer should not be allowed to deny this. This must be a condition of any permission and traffic-free linear access must be protected the length of the scheme;
- there needs to be a rethink on the height of buildings closest to the river. The river needs space to breathe. The site is prestigious and needs something of quality which will show the river at its best. This development will not look out of place in a holiday resort and will take the NE to the bottom of the league for mediocre design. This is not the sort of architecture that the Duke of Northumberland would allow in Alnwick so it is not good enough here;
- Brewery Bond apartments overlook the site and Duke Street. There is already noise from the buses and if the bus turning circle is enlarged this will be worse;
- cars from 1200 households will now also pass by bedroom windows and the noise will be unbearable;
- it is already difficult to get out of the car park onto Duke Street and this will become more difficult. The road should be moved away from the Brewery Bond and the speed limit reduced. This will also benefit ferry passengers;
- the buildings are too high and not in keeping with existing development;
- more of the docks should be retained for marina use and retaining the history of the site;
- more parking spaces are required;
- more leisure facilities and open space are required;