Planning and Development Committee s4

Planning and Development Committee 9 April 2010

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Planning and Development Committee was held on 9 April 2010

PRESENT: Councillor McPartland (Chair), Councillors Brunton (Vice Chair), Councillors Bloundele, Clark, Cox, J Hobson (as substitute for Councillor Whatley), McIntyre and Purvis.

OFFICERS: M Chilton, V Flynn, A Hughes, B Roberts, A Symon and E Vickers.

**ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Cole

**DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Name of Councillor / Type of Interest / Item of Interest
Councillor Brunton / Personal / M/FP/0180/10/P

**APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were submitted on behalf of Councillors Davison, K Walker and Whatley

**MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on 19 March 2010 were submitted and approved as a true record.

NOTED

PLANS

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

ORDERED that the following applications be determined as shown: -

**DECLARATION OF INTEREST – Councillor Brunton declared a Personal Interest in the following item.

M/FP/0180/10/P – Partial change of use from (B8) cash and carry to food preparation and distribution (B2) and ducting to rear at Stonehouse Street (Lucky Cash and Carry) Linthorpe for Mr Tarke Mahmood

The Head of Development advised Members that this application had been identified as requiring a site visit by members of the Planning and Development Committee. Accordingly a site visit had been held prior to the meeting.

Details of the plan status and planning history were outlined in the report.

Members were advised that the applicant sought permission for the part change of use from cash and carry (B8 use class) to food preparation and distribution (B2 use class). The development would supply weddings and other functions for the Asian community in the area.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and comments were received from local residents in the form of a petition which had been signed by 44 local residents and which stated six grounds for objection:

- there was already a full quota of fast food outlets within this ward

- there was already a vermin problem with extremely close proximity to these premises in residential properties

- parking iwas a problem in the surrounding streets

- litter and dumping of waste materials within the area was a problem

- these premises were within a short distance from a number of residential properties, (which was visible from some).

- The noise nuisance if the operation was run on a 24/7 basis could cause a nuisance to these residential properties and this was worrying to some residents.

There were no objections from highway services and Urban Policy and Implementation Service. Community Protection Service had no objections, but requested a condition to control ventilation to the premises.

A detailed analysis of the application was also included in the report and particular reference was made to policies DC1, CS5, CS4, CS7 and EM1 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework was also included in the report.

Reasons for Recommendation

The application was satisfactory in that the change of use accorded with the principles of National Planning Policy (PPS1) and local policy requirements (Policies DC1, CS5, CS4 and CS7 of the Council’s Development Plan).

In particular the full preparation and distribution usage is located within an area identified on the Council’s Local Development Plan as white land and as such the food preparation and distribution use would be consistent with the employment use of the surrounding area. The food preparation and distribution use continued and the employment use of the small industrial estate and would not be detrimental to the amenity of surrounding properties. The traffic generated, car parking and noise associated with the food preparation and distribution use would not be of a level likely to result in an unacceptable impact on nearby premises.

The application was therefore considered to be an acceptable form of development, fully in accordance with the relevant policy guidance and there were no material considerations, which would indicate that the development should be refused.

The applicant was present but elected not to address the committee. Objectors were present and their representative elected to address the committee.

Refused on the grounds that; (i) the proposed change of use was unacceptable, as the operating time would result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring residential occupiers by reason of the additional traffic and activity generated by the use; (ii) the application did not propose a satisfactory form of ventilation system and in the submitted form would have the potential to produce odours, which would impact on the nearby residential properties, to the detriment of the amenity of those occupiers; (iii) having regard to the above, the proposal was in conflict with Policy DC1 in the Council’s Development Plan.

M/FP/0131/10/P – Two storey extension to rear of 21 Windsor Crescent, Nunthorpe for Mrs F A Bullock

Details of the plan status and planning history were outlined in the report.

Members were advised that the subject of this application was for a two storey brick and tile extension to the rear, which extended across the full width of the host property and protruded 3 metres from the rear elevation. Two windows were to be inserted in the existing side elevations; one an obscure glazed bathroom window and the other a first floor bedroom window.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and objections were received from the occupier at No. 23 Windsor Crescent who objected that the proposed extension would overhang her garden by 5 metres and so would overshadow and dominate No. 23. She also stated that the proposal was out of keeping with the surrounding houses; No. 21 was built at a higher level which compounded the problem; the proposal would reduce sunlight to property and garden area of No. 23; the open aspects on No. 23 would be affected; there would be loss of property value and the affect on plants in the garden.

A detailed analysis of the application was included in the report. Members were advised that No. 21 Windsor Crescent was a detached property set back by 1.5m from the adjacent property at No. 23 Windsor Crescent. The proposed extension would have a significant impact on the aspects from the kitchen window at No. 23 in that it would result in a blank two-storey elevation measuring 4.5metres in total. The extension was located on the southern aspect where it would have the greatest impact in terms of overshadowing.

The applicant was given the opportunity to reduce the width of the proposal by 1 metre to reduce the effect on the adjacent property but he declined to do so because of the impact this would have on the internal layout. If the extension was reduced by 1 metre, the proposal could be carried out under permitted development rights. However, without the 1 metre set back to reduce the impact to an acceptable level it was deemed that the proposal as it stood was unacceptable.

The other issues raised by the adjacent neighbour in objection were addressed in the analysis.

Particular reference was also made to Policies DC1 and CS5 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework.

An objector was present and elected to address the committee.

Refused on the grounds that the proposed development by reason of its size and location would be excessively overbearing and detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers wholly in conflict with Policy DC1 and CS5 of the Council’s Development Plan.

M/FP/0141/10/P – Attached single storey dwelling to side of 7 Woodvale, Coulby Newham for Mr J Livingstone

Details of the plan status and planning history were outlined in the report.

Members were advised that No. 7 Woodvale was an established 5 bedroom single storey dwelling with rooms in the roof space at the head of a small section of cul-de-sac in this residential area. The property was constructed on one of the four self build plots which were all single storey dwellings either with or without rooms in the roof space. There was no longer any garage at the property as the previous extension now occupied this area. A small driveway for two vehicles had been retained. The proposal related to the area of side garden, which was irregular and almost triangular in shape. On this land it was proposed to erect an attached single storey dwelling unit with its own independent access. Details of its construction were included in the report.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and the representations were set out in appendix 1 of the report. The objections were received from the occupiers of nos. 5,6 and 8 Woodvale. In summary the issues raised in the representations included that the size of the proposal and the amount of plot coverage was excessive; it was over development of the site, it would dominate the street scene, it had a detrimental effect on the street scene, there was overlooking and loss of privacy to adjacent occupiers and there was a lack of car parking and obstruction of the highway. Comments from Transportation, Urban Policy and Implementation, Streetscene, Secure by Design Officer, Fire Service, Northumbrian Water, Northern Gas Network, and the local Community Council were all included in the report.

A detailed analysis of the application was also included in the report and particular reference was made to policy CS5, DC1 and CS4 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework.

Reasons for Recommendation

The application was considered to be unsatisfactory in that the proposed attached single storey dwelling to the side was contrary to and conflicted with the principles of National Planning Policy (PPS1) and the Local Development Framework Policy requirements (Policy CS5, DC1 and CS4).

The application was considered to be an unacceptable form of development contrary to local and national policy and on balance the material considerations indicated that the development should be refused.

The Ward Councillor, Councillor Cole, was present and addressed the committee in objection to this application.

Refused on the grounds that (i) the proposed attached single storey dwelling was considered unacceptable as it would result in a sub division of the plot and introduce a built form that was inappropriate in this location and alter the layout of the cul-de-sac that formed part of Woodvale. (ii) the proposed attached single storey dwelling by reason of its size and location was out of keeping and not complementary to the character of the area; (iii) the proposal constituted an unacceptable form of development that was contrary to and conflicted with the provisions of Policy CS5 (c) and (f) and Policy DC1 (b) and (c) of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework.

M/FP/0153/10/P – Erection of 1 no. dwellinghouse at 85 Laycock Street for Jomast Development Limited.

Details of the plan status and planning history were outlined in the report.

Members were advised that nos. 83 and 85 Laycock Street where a pair of semi detached dwellinghouses located on a corner plot at the junction of Laycock Street and Crescent Road. Due to the corner location each of the plots was triangular in shape. The dwelling had a relatively broad frontage onto Laycock Street with side gardens of reasonable size, which tapered to a point at the end of a rear small yard. Details of access to these two properties and details of the proposed dimensions were included in the report.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and two letters of objection had been received from the occupiers of no. 81 Orwell Street and no. 94 Laycock Street. Details of the objections of these two residents were included in the report. Comments received from Secure by Design Officer, Northern Gas, Planning Policy, Community Protection, Transportation, the Urban Design Officer, etc were included in the report.

A detailed analysis of the application was also included in the report. Particular reference was made to the Local Development Framework Policies REG8, CS9, CS5, CS4 and DC1.

Members were advised that there were no technical objections to the application. The design, scale, mass and layout of the proposed dwelling was appropriate for the site. The proposed dwelling would not have a detrimental affect on the nearby residents or amenities and did not conflict with the relevant planning policies.

Approved on condition that (i) the development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. (ii) the development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications received on 25 March 2010 and shall relate to no other plans. (iii) no development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details (iv) the development hereby approved shall be built in accordance with Secure by Design principles, the details of which shall be submitted as a scheme and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the agreed scheme before occupation commences. (Reasons as detailed in the report).