Planning and Development Committee

16 February 2007 Planning and Development Committee

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Planning and Development Committee was held on 16 February 2007

PRESENT: Councillor McPartland (Chair), Councillors Brunton, Clark, Ferrier, Lowes, Khan and McTigue

OFFICIALS: V Flynn, A Hughes, B Roberts, S Teale and E Vickers.

**ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor N J Walker

**DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST – Councillor Brunton – M/GRG/2124/06/P ) Newham Bridge

Councillor Lowes – M/GRG/2124/06/P ) Primary School

**APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bloundele and McIntyre

**MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 26 January 2007 were submitted and approved as a true record.

PLANS

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Programme 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: -

M/FP/0011/07/P – Two-storey extension side/rear and change of use to form 1 no. new retail (A1) unit and 1 no. additional first floor flat at 2 Greystoke Court, Acklam for Mr M Harkin.

Deferred pending a site visit.

M/FP/0037/07/P – Two storey extension to side and first floor only extension to side at 19 Maltby Road, Thornton for Mr R Wagstaff.

Deferred pending a site visit.

M/FP/2221/06/P – Conservatory at rear of 3 Eastgate, Linthorpe for Mr D Middlemiss.

Deferred pending a site visit.

M/FP/2259/06/P – Part single/part two storey extension to rear, attached garage to side, porch to front and conservatory to rear of 17 Cambridge Road, Linthorpe for Mr A Hussain.

Deferred pending a site visit.

M/FP/2319/06/P – Formation of leisure fishing, including fishing platforms, footbridge, footpath and landscaping at Hemlington Lake, Hemlington for Ground Works South Tees.

Full details of the proposal were included in the report, as was a detailed analysis of the application.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and no objections had been received. The Environment Agency had examined the application and raised no objections.

Reasons for Recommendation:

The application was satisfactory and that the design of the proposed works accorded with the principles of National Planning Policy (PPS1) and Local Policy requirements (Policy E1 of the Councils Local Plan).

In particular the proposal was designed so that its appearance was complimentary to the existing lake and so that it would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of any adjoining or nearby residents. The proposal would not prejudice the appearance of the area and did not significantly affect any landscaping or prevent adequate and safe access to the lake.

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 Ward Councillor, Councillor N J Walker was present and addressed the committee in support of this application.

Approved.

**DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Brunton declared a Prejudicial Interest in the following application and left the room for the duration of its consideration.

Councillor Lowes declared a Prejudicial Interest in the following item and elected to join the meeting following the consideration of this application.

M/GRG/2124/06/P – Single storey Children’s Centre extension, extension and alteration to existing car parks, with new 1.2m and 2.1m fences at Newham Bridge Primary School, Cayton Drive, Acklam Hall for Mrs D Pollitt.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Programme advised Members that this application had been deferred at the last meeting pending a site visit. Accordingly a site visit had been held prior to the meeting.

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

Full details of the proposal were included in the report. Members were advised that the proposal was to develop a Surestart facility by extending the existing school building on the east facing elevation, including car parking and fencing. The existing car park at the school accommodated 22 parking spaces and to include the provision of vehicular access to the proposed car park extension this will be altered to 16 spaces including 2 specifically for disabled persons. The car park extension will provide 17 spaces including 1 specifically for disabled persons.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and a significant degree of representation has been made. A public meeting was held at the school on 11 December 2006 at which many residents were in attendance. The representations made were set out in Appendix 1 of the report. In addition a petition has been submitted signed by 80 residents from 54 properties stating objection to the planning application and some of the petitioners have made individual representations by letter and email. In summary the issues raised in the many comments included traffic and parking incursion in the school, inadequate parking within the school, loss of amenity, insufficient consultation, traffic congestion and whether there was a need for the Surestart facility. Comments received from Transportation and the Acklam Community Council were included in the report.

A detailed analysis of the application was also included in the report.

Reasons for Recommendation:

The application was satisfactory in that the proposed works accorded with the principles of National Planning Policy (PPS1) and the Local Policy requirements (Policy E1).

Appearance of the proposed development was a compliment to the existing school and would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of any adjoining or nearby occupier.

The proposed works would not prejudice the appearance of the area and did not significantly affect any landscaping nor prevent adequate and safe access to the school.

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 Agent for the application and Head Teacher of the school were present and both elected to address the committee. Five objectors were present and two representatives addressed the committee on their behalf. One of the objectors tabled a letter, which was distributed to members at the meeting. The objector requested that the committee requested that the highway engineers should examine the possibility of the use of an alternative entrance to the site, traffic management and signs and a safe route/walking bus. The issue of parents using the car park of the nearby Endeavour Public House as a temporary car park was also being pursued. The committee agreed that this was a reasonable request and the highways engineer present agreed to take this back to the relevant service area.

A great deal of discussion took place regarding this application and issues raised included traffic levels, hours of use of the facilities, types of uses within the facilities, levels of use, access and egress from the site and other matters which were not relevant planning considerations.

ORDERED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992, the application be approved on condition that the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building (Reason: to ensure the use of satisfactory materials).

(Councillor Lowes joined the meeting at this point, due to his earlier Declaration of Interest)

(Councillor Brunton re-joined the meeting at this point).

M/OUT/2275/06/P – Erection of 1 no. bungalow with detached garage to the rear of 1 Bisham Avenue, Linthorpe for Fidel Da Silva.

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

Full details of the proposal were included in the report.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and objections received from the occupiers at 29, 27, 25, 23 Grosvenor Road and nos. 38, 46 and 52 Studley Road, and there was also a petition signed by 10 residents, including those previously mentioned, the details of which are included in the report. Comments received from Streetscene, Transportation and Community Protection were included in the report.

A detailed analysis of the application was also included in the report. Reference was made to the level of the area in relation to the nearby housing.

Reasons for Recommendation:

The outline application was satisfactory in that the design of the proposed bungalow accorded with the principles of National Planning Policy (PPS1 and 3) and Local Policy requirements (Policy E1 and HO7of the Council’s Local Plan).

In particular, the proposal would not prejudice the appearance of the area and did not significantly affect any landscaping.

The outline 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 and spoke briefly to confirm that it was his intention to build one bungalow on this site. An objector was present and advised the committee of her concerns regarding overlooking, loss of privacy and the possible uses of the proposed dwelling.

Approved on condition that; (i) approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building, the means of access thereto, the method of drainage, the land surface contours and the landscaping of the site, shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority before development commences; (ii) an application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission; (iii) the permission hereby granted shall be for 1 bungalow only; (iv) Before development commences, a plan showing the location of temporary car parking for use during construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented upon commencement of the development. Thereafter, such car parking to be removed on completion of works; (v) prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the vehicular access to the site shall be constructed and provided in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; (vi) prior to the commencement of development, the level of the site and sections through the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter such schemes as may be approved shall be implemented as part of the approved development. (Reasons: as detailed in the report).

M/FP/2324/06/P - Two storey side extension, first floor rear extension, conservatory at rear and porch at front of 30 Preen Drive, Acklam for Mr and Mrs Younis.

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

Full details of the proposal were included in the report.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and the occupier at No. 28 Preen Drive objected on the grounds of loss of light to their accommodation, devaluation of property, the existing brick boundary wall would have to be removed and replaced with the extension wall, but they had no objection to the conservatory or porch. However, the last building work on the site was a garage twice the size of a normal garage with a high apex which blocked the sun to their rear garden and the garage was used as a meeting room about 4 times a month.

Reasons for Recommendation:

A detailed analysis of the application was also included in the report.

The application was satisfactory in that the design of the proposed extension accorded with the principles of National Planning Policy (PPS1) and Local Policy requirements (Policy E1 and HO14 of the Council’s Local Plan).

In particular, the extension was designed so that its appearance was complementary to the existing dwelling house and so that it would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of any adjoining or nearby resident. The extension would not prejudice the appearance of the area and did not significantly affect any landscaping nor prevent adequate and safe access to the dwelling.

The objector was present and briefly addressed the committee.

Approved on condition that (i) the development shall only be carried out using finishing materials of which samples have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development; (ii) the development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications received on 14 February 2007 and shall relate to no other plans (Reasons as detailed in the report).

M/FP/0002/07/P – Retrospective boundary wall and railings at front of 3 Bramley Grove, Marton for Mr G Thompson.

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

Members were advised that retrospective permission was sought for the erection of a boundary wall and railings at the front of the property.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and one letter of objection had been received from the neighbour at 5 Bramley Grove who objected that Bramley Grove should remain totally open plan in accordance with the stipulation and the deeds of the properties and that no boundary walls existed anywhere else in Bramley Grove. The objector also stated that the height of the existing wall exceeded that detailed within the application and that the dividing wall between the properties at no. 3 and 5 were 178cm at it’s highest point, gave easy access to the roof of his garage and an upstairs window. It also reduced viewpoint from the front of the house and there was a drop in the drive levels of no’s 3 to 5 of 40cm.