REGULATORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY 2 JUNE 2016 AT 10.00 AM
REDCAR & CLEVELAND LEISURE AND COMMUNITY HEART, RIDLEY
STREET, REDCAR, YORKSHIRE, TS10 1TD
CONTACT
Mrs Elizabeth Dale
(01642) 444492
23 May 2016
CIRCULATION
Councillors Foggo (Chair), M Wilson (Vice Chair), Dick, Foley-McCormack, Mrs Forster,
E Jackson, Moses, Norton, Ovens, Quartermain, Smith, Turner and Watts.
Corporate Director of Regeneration Services
All Members of the Council (For information)
The Press [except for Confidential item(s)]
AGENDA
1.
Apologies for Absence.
Pages
2.
To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2016.
3 - 11
3.
Regulatory Committee Procedure.
4.
Declarations of Interest.
5.
Report of the Corporate Director of Corporate Resources:
a. Application for the grant of consent Street Trading Permit – Ms JCF
6.
12 - 33
REPORTS OF THE CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION
R/2016/0201/FFM - 51 Residential units including new vehicular and
pedestrian accesses and associated landscaping - Land at Fabian Road, Eston
– Officer’s Recommendation Approval
34 - 52
R/2016/0154/RMM - Application for reserved matters approval (appearance,
landscaping, layout and scale) for erection of 116 dwellings and associated
garaging, sub-station, provision of open space, landscaping and ancillary
works pursuant to outline planning permission granted on appeal, reference
app/v0728/w/15/3006780 dated 16 December 2015 - Land South of Marske
Road, Saltburn - Officer’s Recommendation Approval
53 - 65
7.
Decisions Issued under Delegated Powers.
66 - 72
8.
Enforcement Actions
73 - 74
9.
Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order (TPO 01 /2016)
Woodcock Wood, Flatts Lane, Normanby
75 - 76
10.
Current Section 106 Agreements Recommendation of Audit Report
11.
Any items the Chair certifies as urgent.
77 - 78
AGENDA ITEM 2
REGULATORY COMMITTEE
13 May 2016
REGULATORY COMMITTEE
A meeting of the Regulatory Committee was held on 13 May 2016.
PRESENT
Councillor Foggo (Chair),
Councillors Dick, Foley-McCormack, Jackson,
Moses, Norton, Ovens, Quartermain, Smith,
Turner, Walsh (substituting for Councillor Mrs
Forster), Watts and Wilson
OFFICIALS
E Dale, E Garbutt and A Miller
IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Hunt and Thomson.
AN APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE was submitted on behalf of Councillor
Mrs Forster.
103.
MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Regulatory Committee held on 21
April 2016 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.
1.
R/2016/0144/LB Listed Building Consent for replacement of existing
timber windows and doors with UPVC windows and doors.
The Director of Regeneration reported that Listed building consent was
sought for the replacement of timber windows and doors with UPVC
windows and doors at 18 Stone Row, Skinngingrove. 18 Stone Row
was situated within a Conservation Area and was a Grade II listed
building. The property was two storeys of traditional construction with a
tiled roof.
The application was identical to one submitted in 2011 which was
refused listed building consent und the Director of Regeneration’s
delegated powers on 5 January 2011. This decision was not the subject
of an appeal.
The consultation exercise had resulted in no responses having been
received.
Loftus Town Council supported the proposal as they felt that the
proposal would have little visual impact and that it was sympathetic to
the viability of this building remaining in use as a dwelling.
The main issue to be considered in the determination of this application
was whether it was appropriate to allow the use of modern UPVC
N/DemServs/Minutes/
23/05/2016 14:23
Page 3 of 78
REGULATORY COMMITTEE
13 May 2016
window units and doors in a Grade II listed building.
The building description on the National Register states;
LOFTUS STONE ROW, Skinningrove. NZ 71 NW 1/65 Nos. 18 and 19.
II Pair of cottages, late C18. Dressed sandstone; renewed clay pantile
roof with stone ridge and gable copings, block kneelers and renewed
brick end and ridge stacks. 2 storeys with 4 windows. Central boarded
door and overlight with painted lintel to each cottage. Sashes with
glazing bars in No. 19 those on first floor renewed. Mid-late C20 tophung casements in No. 18. Painted stone lintels on ground floor. Painted
sills.
The existing windows in the front and rear elevations of the property
were single glazed, timber sliding sash with a painted finish. The
proposed replacement windows were to be modern double glazed
UPVC sliding sash windows.
Since the application involved works to a listed building in a
Conservation Area, two provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 were required to be applied.
In respect of decisions on applications for listed building consent the Act
states;
16(2) Decision on application
In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the
local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special
regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any
features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
In terms of the impact on the Conservation Area the Act states;
72 (i) General duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of
planning functions.
In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a
conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of any of the
provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to
the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance
of that area.
Planning policy in respect of heritage assets was set out in the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Practice
Guidance.
Para 131 In determining applications, local planning authorities should
N/DemServs/Minutes/
23/05/2016 14:23
Page 4 of 78
REGULATORY COMMITTEE
13 May 2016
take account of:
•
•
•
The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of
heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with
their conservation
The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can
make to sustainable communities including their economic
viability
The desirability of new development making a practice
contribution to local character and distinctiveness
Para 132 When considering the impact of a proposed development on
the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be
given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the
greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost
through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development
within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable any harm or loss
should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or
loss of a grade II listed building …. should be exceptional …….
Para 133 Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm
to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local
planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be
demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss in necessary to achieve
substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss……..
Para 134 Where a development proposal will lead to less than
substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this
harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the
proposal……..
The insertion of new elements such as doors and windows, (including
dormers and roof lights to bring roof spaces into more intensive use) is
quite likely to adversely affect the building’s significance.’
NPPF policy finds expression in several LDF policies including;
Policy CS25 (Built and Historic Environment) which states;
Development proposals will be expected to contribute positively to the
character of the built and historic environment of the Borough. The
character of the built and historic environment will be protected,
preserved or enhanced. Particular protection will be given to the
character and special features of;
a) Conservation Areas
b) Listed Buildings
c) Historic Parks and Gardens
N/DemServs/Minutes/
23/05/2016 14:23
Page 5 of 78
REGULATORY COMMITTEE
13 May 2016
d) archaeological sites and
e) the historic landscape of the Eston Hills
Development which preserves or, where appropriate, enhances the
character of important historic buildings and sites and their settings will
be encouraged.
Buildings, such as the application site, were listed because of their
special architectural or heritage value. In addition such buildings,
individually or in groups, contributed towards the character and
appearance of the Conservation Areas in which they may be located.
Such buildings had an intrinsic character which was sensitive to change
and easily compromised by inappropriate and uncharacteristic
alterations.
The central issue in respect of this application was the use of UPVC
material and the character of modern double glazed units and doors.
UPVC was clearly not a material which was characteristic of buildings of
this age and, if approved, the unique character of the building and part
of its fabric would not only be compromised but would be lost forever.
Whilst it was noted the windows proposed were described as being from
a heritage range, this was simply a marketing title used by the window
manufacturer. Whilst there had been some improvement in the design of
modern double glazed window units, UPVC windows, particularly double
glazed units, still raised issue in terms design details such as the
thickness of glazing bars, the appearance and weathering of UPVC and
the fact that such windows were factory produced standard units. The
use of such windows, which were designed to replicate, as far as was
possible, an older more traditional design was at best, a pastiche which
did not retain the essential character of original timber glazed units and
resulted in an adverse impact on the heritage asset and wider
Conservation Area in which the building was located.
Given the nature of the proposals set out in the application officers took
the view that the development would result in substantial harm to this
heritage asset which, in accordance with NPPF policy should be refused
unless substantial public benefits outweighed that harm, no such public
benefit arose in this case. If it was concluded that the works would
result in less than substantial harm, then again the NPPF required the
Council to weight this harm against public benefits and so, on both
policy tests, the application failed.
In applying the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Act the officers
concluded that the works failed to preserve the building, its setting and
features of special architectural or historic interest and introduced a form
of development which was prejudicial to the architectural and historic
character of the building.
N/DemServs/Minutes/
23/05/2016 14:23
Page 6 of 78
REGULATORY COMMITTEE
13 May 2016
The application site was located in the Skinningrove Conservation Area.
It was located on the north side of Stone Row in a prominent location
and was one of a pair of listed buildings. If it was concluded that the
proposed development adversely impacted on the character of a
heritage asset (listed building) then the development would also
arguably detract from the appearance or character of the wider
Conservation Area.
Officers acknowledged that there were UPVC windows within the wider
area of Skinningrove and in the absence of an Article 4 Direction the
Council had far less control over such works. In this case, however, the
property was a listed building which benefited from a degree of
protection in terms of planning policy and primary legislation and places
an obligation on the Council to consider the application not just in terms
of planning policy but also primary legislation.
The financial and practical burden to maintaining timber windows was
acknowledged but this could not constitute a reason for allowing work
that detracted from a building's special interest. The Local Planning
Authority and the owners of such heritage assets had a shared
responsibility to maintain the property to preserve its heritage status.
It was settled case law that the personal circumstances of an applicant
would seldom outweigh planning policy objections to a proposed
development, more so, since this application involved unacceptable
works to a listed building. If the application was approved then this
argument could be advanced to often on other similar applications with
consequences for decision making and the erosion of the heritage value
of the listed building stock.
It was suggested by both Loftus Town Council and the Council’s
Conservation Advisor that the provision of a composite door had the
potential to reduce the risk of flood waters entering the property due to
better seals than the existing timber door. This was not a matter that
had been detailed within the application. Notwithstanding the suggested
potential benefits of this material, the Council’s flood engineers advised,
there was no technical reason why such flood doors could not be
manufactured from timber.
Taking the contents of the report into consideration it was considered
that the replacement of the existing timber windows and doors with
UPVC units would be prejudicial to the historic character of the listed
building and the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.
The proposal was therefore considered to be contrary to policy CS20,
CS25, DP3, DP9 and DP10 of the Local Development Framework and in
conflict with policy set out in the NPPF and the provisions of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
N/DemServs/Minutes/
23/05/2016 14:23
Page 7 of 78
REGULATORY COMMITTEE
13 May 2016
A representative from the Parish Council was present at the meeting
and made the following comments:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Before Loftus Urban District Council was dissolved many of the
older properties in Skinningrove were demolished as they were
too costly to bring up to standard. The applicant bought this
property with no indication that it would become a Listed Building;
The property had been flooded a few years ago and no-one could
guarantee it would not happen again;
The elderly resident was keen to carry out his own maintenance
but following an accident could only work at ground level;
The owner was trying to reduce his carbon footprint;
If Officers were to visit the applicant and wanted to change the
design I am sure that it would not be a problem;
If the proposal was approved then it would reduce maintenance;
The house next door had UPVC windows and doors;
If the application was granted it would enhance, sustain and
restore the heritage of the property.
Councillor Hunt representing the Ward was present at the meeting and
made the following comments:•
•
•
•
•
The present owner purchased the property in 1985 when it was
derelict and sank his savings into it before it was listed in 1987.
Prior to its listing he could have carried out any works that he saw
fit;
The entire row of cottages was in a Conservation Area and
despite the houses being built in the 1700’s every one of them
had UPVC windows and doors;
Following the floods engineers were in Skinningrove promoting
these UPVC doors;
Permission had been given for new housing opposite and the
garde II listed building opposite had been altered;
The applicant was being penalised as he was having to purchase
top priced products in order to get the quality required.
RESOLVED that Listed Building Consent be refused for the following
reasons:1. The application proposes the replacement of the existing timber
windows and doors with those manufactured from UPVC. The
Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed
development would result in the installation of windows and doors
which, by reason of their design and use of modern materials, fail
to preserve the building, its setting and features of special
architectural or historic interest contrary policy set out in the
N/DemServs/Minutes/
23/05/2016 14:23
Page 8 of 78
REGULATORY COMMITTEE
13 May 2016
National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS25 (Built and
Historic Environment) (DP2 Location of Development) DP3
(Sustainable Design) and DP10 (Listed Buildings) of the Redcar
and Cleveland Local Development Framework 2007.
2.
2.
The application site is located within the Skinningrove
Conservation Area in view of the adverse impact on the listed
building the Local Planning Authority considers the development
will detract from the appearance and character of the
Conservation Area contrary to policy DP9 (Conservation Areas)
of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework
2007.
DRAFT LOCAL PLAN.
The Director of Regeneration sought approval of the Draft Local Plan for
the purposes of public consultation and set out the timetable for the
subsequent stages of plan preparation.
RESOLVED that the Regulatory Committee agrees the recommendation
that Cabinet:
1. Approve the Draft Local Plan for the purpose of public
consultation; and
2. Delegates authority to the Corporate Director of Regeneration, in
consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, to
make any amendments to the Draft Local Plan (should they be
necessary) prior to consultation.
3. That following public consultation the Local Plan be referred back
to Regulatory Committee prior to it being considered by Cabinet.
3.
SELF-BUILD AND CUSTOM BUILD REGISTER
The Director of Regeneration provided information on the Council’s SelfBuild and Custom Build Register, its purpose and how it might be
accessed.
RESOLVED that the duty to maintain a Self-Build and Custom
Housebuilding Register and the obligations to the Council to have regard
to the register be noted.
4.
DELEGATED DECISIONS
The Corporate Director of Regeneration circulated a schedule of
Planning Permissions granted under his Delegated Powers (Planning
N/DemServs/Minutes/
23/05/2016 14:23
Page 9 of 78
REGULATORY COMMITTEE
13 May 2016
Committee Minute No. 26 – 29 June, 1995). The schedule also included
advertisement decisions and tree pruning/felling decisions made under
his Delegated Powers.
:-NOTED.
5.
PLANNING APPEAL RECEIVED
R2015/0752/RS Use of agricultural land for detached stable block
(resubmission) at Lowcross Farm, Guisborough.
The appeal was made against refusal of permission (Delegated Powers
1 February 2016).
Written representations procedure.
:-NOTED.
6.
SCHEDULE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
The Corporate Director of Regeneration presented Members with the
schedule of enforcement actions which had been undertaken in the
period 1 March 2016 to 15 March 2016.
:-NOTED.
7.
PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS.
R/2015/0652/FF – Single storey detached garden room (part
retrospective) at 22 The Firlands Marske.
The appeal was made against refusal of permission (Delegated Decision
20 December 2015) and had subsequently been DISMISSED.
R/2015/0610/FF – Demolition of existing porch and garage and
replace with larger porch and two storey extension at side at 17
Trent Road Redcar.
The appeal was made against refusal of permission (Delegated Decision
18 November 2015) and had subsequently been DISMISSED.
R/2015/0609/FF Dormer extension at rear including raising height of
ridge line at 6 The Larches Teesville.
The appeal was made against refusal of permission (Delegated Decision
20 January 2016) and had subsequently been DISMISSED.
N/DemServs/Minutes/
23/05/2016 14:23
Page 10 of 78
REGULATORY COMMITTEE
13 May 2016
: - NOTED.
8.
APPLICATION FOR DEEMED PLANNING PERMISSION
R/2016/0213/AD Display of 1 information panel seafront opposite 2
Newcomen Terrace Redcar.
Listed Building Consent Granted.
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
It was agreed that the following item be considered under any other
business.
PLANNING ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ANNUAL REPORT
2015/16.
The Director of Regeneration circulated a report which summarised the
work and key achievements of the planning enforcement and
compliance officers within the Development Management team for the
period 2015/16.
Members thanked the Director of Regeneration for an excellent report
and congratulated the team for all their hard work.
:-NOTED.
N/DemServs/Minutes/
23/05/2016 14:23
Page 11 of 78
Agenda Item 5
Page 12 of 78
Page 13 of 78
Page 14 of 78
Page 15 of 78
Page 16 of 78
Page 17 of 78
Page 18 of 78
Page 19 of 78
Page 20 of 78
Page 21 of 78
Page 22 of 78
Page 23 of 78
Page 24 of 78
Page 25 of 78
Page 26 of 78
Page 27 of 78
Page 28 of 78
Page 29 of 78
Page 30 of 78
Page 31 of 78
Page 32 of 78
Page 33 of 78
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
Planning (Development Management)
APPLICATION NUMBER: R/2016/0201/FFM
LOCATION:
LAND AT FABIAN ROAD ESTON
PROPOSAL:
51 RESIDENTIAL UNITS INCLUDING NEW
VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSES
AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING
APPLICATION SITE AND DESCRIPTION
Permission is sought for 51 residential units including new vehicular and
pedestrian accesses and associated landscaping on land at Fabian Road,
Eston.
The application site is currently vacant land following the demolition of the
Town Hall and James Finnegan Hall and is grassed. Surrounding the site to
east, south and west are residential properties with the open space of Eston
Rec and the former Eston Park School to the north. The site has an area of
1.38ha (3.2 acres)
The submitted plans propose a mix of two, three and four bedroomed
properties and a mix of terrace, semi-detached and detached dwellings. All of
the properties proposed on the site are two storeys.
The main access to the site would be from Fabian Road to an internal access
road. Four of the properties would have direct access onto Fabian Road and
seven properties would have direct access onto Burns Road tot eh west of the
site. There is a mix of integral garages, attached and detached garages
throughout the site with each plot being served by a driveway or parking
space..
The application has been accompanied by the following documentation;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Construction Management Plan
Affordable Housing Statement
Parking Statement
Design and Access Statement
Ecology Appraisal
Economic Impact Report
Flood Risk Assessment
Geoenvironmental Report
Security Through Design Statement
Planning Statement
Site Waste Management Plan
Statement of Community Involvement
Sustainability Statement
Page 34 of 78
•
Tree Survey
The development does not fall with the threshold of schedule 2 development
under the Environment Impact Regulations.
Councillor Ian Jeffrey has requested that the application be determined by
committee.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires
that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with
the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
REDCAR & CLEVELAND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (LDF)
CORE STRATEGY DPD
CS1 Securing a Better Quality of Life
CS2 Locational Strategy
CS3 Spatial Strategy for Greater Eston
CS15 Delivering Mixed and Balanced Communities and Quality Homes
CS17 Housing Density
CS19 Delivering Inclusive Communities
CS20 Promoting Good Design
CS22 Protecting and Enhancing the Boroughs Landscape
CS24 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES DPD
DP2 Site Selection
DP3 Sustainable Design
DP4 Developer Contributions
DP5 Art and Development
DP6 Pollution Control
DP7 Potentially Contaminated and Unstable Land
EMERGING LOCAL PLAN
Following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework, the
Council agreed to prepare a new Local Plan to replace the Local
Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Policies DPDs. A
Draft Local Plan was agreed in September 2013, which was subject to public
consultation. The outcomes of the consultation were taken into account in
preparing a Publication Local Plan, which the Borough Council resolved not to
approve in July 2014. The evidence base that was used to support the
Page 35 of 78
preparation of the Publication Local Plan will continue to be material in the
consideration of planning applications until superseded by new evidence. A
revised Local Plan is currently under preparation. Until the adoption of the
new local plan planning applications are required to be assessed against
current relevant policy in the LDF the NPPF and all other material planning
considerations.
Policy H3.9 Former Redcar and Cleveland Town Hall, Eston
OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS
•
•
•
Design of Residential Areas Supplementary Planning Document
Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document
Greater Eston Design Code Supplementary Planning Document
PLANNING HISTORY
Several applications relating to the former Town Hall, none relevant to the
current application.
RESULTS OF CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of a press notice, site notice
and neighbour notification letters. As a result of the consultation period no
representations have been received.
Ward Members
Councillor Ian Jeffrey has requested that the application be determined by
committee.
Cleveland Police (Architectural Liaison Officer)
With regards to this application I would recommend applicant actively seek to
develop to accredited Secured by Design standards. I am aware that this
developer does have National Building Approval through SBD; however this
development does not appear to fall within this scope. With this in mind I
would encourage applicant to contact me for any input/guidance I can offer in
relation to designing out the opportunities for crime and disorder from this
development as the process moves forward.
Having viewed the application, including the Maximising Security Through
Design document which states the Secured By Design principles have been
taken into account, I would initially comment on the following.
The BS 6375 standard for doors quoted are not in relation to security, this
standard refers to operation and weather tightness.
The simple inclusion of locking handles on ground floor and easily accessible
windows is likewise no guarantee of the security standard. PAS 24: 2012/16,
Page 36 of 78
or equivalent, is the security standard I would recommend for the doors and
these windows.
The proposal of 600mm post and rail rear sub dividing boundaries offers
absolutely no security and no privacy. As a minimum SBD recommends 1.8m.
privacy section close boarded and then 1.2m close boarded. In this case I
would recommend minimum, after privacy screen, of 1.5mm close boarded
and then every 2 or 3 to have 300mm box trellis on top to stop a long run of
low fences. This offers compromise to additional security and privacy.
I would also recommend that the proposed 1.8m close boarded fencing facing
onto public facing areas be raised to 2m and the rear/side ones backing onto
the open space area be to 2.2m.
I note a number of the proposed house types have windowless side
elevations, this is not recommended as at least 1 window above ground floor
level, where possible, offers additional surveillance over public accessible
areas.
The document states lighting to adopted highways and footpaths and private
estate roads (presuming the proposed shared drive surfaces are under this
category) is to be to BS5489 standards. This is always strongly recommended
as often the column lighting stops at the boundary of adopted highways, so
the continuance of this lighting across all the development is good. The BS
5489 standard is to be to the 2013 standard.
Natural England
No comments to make
Northumbrian Water
We would have no issues to raise with the above application, provided the
application is approved and carried out within strict accordance with the
submitted document entitled “Drainage Assessment”. In this document it
states foul water will connect into manhole 7301. Surface water will be
restricted to 6 Litres per second and connect into manhole 7323.
We would therefore request that the following condition be attached to any
planning approval, so that the development is implemented in accordance
with this document:
CONDITION: Development shall be implemented in line with the drainage
scheme contained within the submitted document entitled “Drainage
Assessment”. The drainage scheme shall ensure that foul flows discharge
manhole 7301, and ensure that surface water discharges to manhole 7323 at
a restricted rate of 6 l/sec.
REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding from any sources in
accordance with the NPPF.
Page 37 of 78
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Environmental Protection)
(Contaminated Land)
With reference to the above planning application, I would confirm that I have
assessed the following environmental impacts which are relevant to the
development and would comment as follows:
I note a Geo-environmental Appraisal Report, addendum ground gas
assessment, and Remediation Strategy have been submitted in support of
this application.
The Geo-environmental Appraisal Report concludes that several
contaminants of concern were highlighted as posing a risk to human health for
the proposed residential end-use including arsenic, Polyaromatic
hydrocarbons but most notably the presence of asbestos.
The appraisal report considers that the majority of contaminants which could
pose a risk to human health were associated with the upper imported made
ground topsoil present across the site and this material is not suitable for
reuse in gardens and landscaped areas within the proposed development.
The addendum ground gas assessment concludes that gas protection
measures to new buildings will be necessary.
The remediation strategy proposes to strip the upper 300mm of made ground
topsoil to be used as deep fill (>1m bgl) in the west of the site where a number
of basement structures and buried obstructions will require breaking out, and
also use a cover system comprising a minimum of 300mm subsoil and a
minimum of 150mm topsoil within private gardens and landscaped areas
(450mm thickness in total), with validation of any imported soils.
In order to minimise the environmental impact I would recommend the
inclusion of the following conditions onto any planning permission which may
be granted:
Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme
The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its
terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to
carry out remediation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written
notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation
scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that
demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be
produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of
the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to
controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the
Page 38 of 78
development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers,
neighbours and other offsite receptors.
Reporting of Unexpected Contamination
In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the
approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in
writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk
assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of
condition 1 and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must
be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2, which is
subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation
scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the
approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with
condition 3.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of
the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to
controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the
development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers,
neighbours and other offsite receptors.
Gas protection
Gas protection measures shall be installed in accordance with BS8485:2015
Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and
carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings. Following completion of
installation, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the
installation of the gas protection measures carried out must be produced, and
is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of
the land and neighbouring land are minimised, and to ensure that the
development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to future
users of the land.
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Environmental Protection)
(Nuisance)
With reference to the above planning application, I would confirm that I have
assessed the following environmental impacts which are relevant to the
development and would comment as follows:
I note a construction management plan has been submitted in support of this
application.
The plan covers noise pollution and states that the developer does not
anticipate any noise pollution above recommended levels during construction.
However, the geo-environmental assessment also submitted in support of this
application states that piled foundations will be required in the west of the site.
Page 39 of 78
The plan also states that a bowser will be used to damp down any dust arising
from construction activities.
In order to minimise the environmental impact I would recommend the
inclusion of the following conditions onto any planning permission which may
be granted:
Before any development is commenced a noise and vibration assessment
shall be carried out to assess the likelihood of adverse impacts on nearby
noise sensitive properties. Where adverse impacts are identified then a
scheme of works detailing how the impacts will be reduced to acceptable
levels shall be submitted for the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning
Authority. The assessment should have due regard to the advice and
guidance contained in British Standard BS5228:2009 Code of practice for
noise and vibration control on construction and open sites.
Reason: To protect the amenities of occupiers of any nearby premises from
noise and minimise the risk of vibration damage to neighbouring buildings.
The working hours for all construction activities on this site shall be limited to
between 08:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays
and not at all on a Sunday or Bank Holidays.
Reason: In the interest of neighbour amenity.
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Local Lead Flood Authority)
The LLFA would require the following conditions, should you be minded to
approve this application;
1. Prior to the commencement of the development, or in such extended
time as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority,
details shall be submitted and approved of the surface water drainage
scheme and the development shall be completed in accordance with
the approved scheme.
The design of the drainage scheme shall include;
(i) Restriction of surface water run-off rates (QBAR value) with
sufficient storage within the system to accommodate a 1 in 30 year
storm.
(ii) Measures to mitigate known surface water issues on the northwest
corner of the site in order to mitigate the risk of increased flooding in
this area
(iii) The method used for calculation of the existing greenfield run-off
rate shall be the ICP SUDS method. The design shall also ensure that
storm water resulting from a 1 in 100 year event, plus 30% climate
change surcharging the system, can be stored on site with minimal risk
to persons or property and without overflowing into drains, local
highways or watercourses.
Page 40 of 78
(iv) Full Micro Drainage design files (mdx files) including a catchment
plan
(v) The flow path of flood waters for the site as a result on a 1 in 100
year event plus 30%
Reason - To ensure the development is supported by a suitably
designed surface water disposal infrastructure scheme and to minimis
the risk flooding in the locality.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, or in such extended
time that may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, details of a
Surface Water Drainage Management Plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Management Plan shall
include;
(i) The timetable and phasing for construction of the drainage system
(ii) Details of any control structure(s)
(iii) Details of surface water storage structures
The development shall, in all respects, be carried out in accordance
with the approved Management Plan.
Reason - To ensure the development is supported by an appropriately
designed surface water disposal infrastructure scheme and to minimise
the risk of increased flooding and contamination of the system during
the construction process.
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Development Engineers)
Initially commented as follows;
I refer to the above application and would advise you that while I have no
objections to the proposal from a highway point of view, I do have the
following conditional comments to make: 1. Before the development commences details shall be submitted and
approved in writing of a traffic management plan for the construction phase of
the works.
2. Before the development commences details shall be submitted and
approved in writing of proposals to provide contractor car parking and a
materials storage compound within the site boundary for the duration of the
works.
3. Parking spaces must be brought into use before the development is
completed, in the interests of highway safety.
4. The private drive should be a minimum of 3.7m wide for its entire length
and should serve no more than 5 properties. It should be noted that the
Council operates kerbside refuse collection.
5. The development sites junction with the existing highway achieves
minimum sight lines of 2.4m x 43m. The area enclosed by this splay should
either be under the applicants control or adopted highway. There should be
no obstructions greater than 600mm within this area and any vegetation
should be maintained at this height.
6. The access road should be 5.5m wide with a 2m footway. Minimum centre
line radius to be 10m. (Centre lines radius to be confirmed)
Page 41 of 78
7. For a garage to count towards the in curtilage parking provision it should
have minimum internal dimensions of 6m long by 3m wide. Driveways to
serve the garage should be a minimum of 6m long with an up over type
garage door or 5.5m long with a roller shutter garage door. The applicant will
need to provide car parking on the following basis; 2 and 3 bedroom houses –
2 spaces (all are satisfactory), 4 bedrooms and above 3 car parking
spaces (Plots 2, 17, 20, 24 and 45 appear to be one space short).
8. Garage dimensions do not comply with the specification. For a garage to
count towards the in curtilage parking provision it should have minimum
internal dimensions of 6m long by 3m wide single, or 6m by 5.75m wide for a
double, to enable easy use (all garages are undersized and cannot be
considered as providing a car parking space – only plots 7, 8, 10, 11, 13,
21, 26, 29, 35, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49 and 50 are acceptable)
9. Vehicular driveways to Plots 3, 4, 5 and 6, adjacent to Fabian Road, are to
be a bound bitumen material. The fall of the new driveways will not discharge
any water onto Fabian Road but drain within curtilage
10. Full highway construction and layout details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority, to ensure the development
is built in accordance with R&C Design Guide and Specification and hence to
adoptable standards.
11. Road safety audits will be required throughout the design and construction
of any highway works. This initial submission should be accompanied by a
combined Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit, and Stages 3 is be submitted as the
design progresses.
Comments on the amended layout as follows;
I refer to the above application resubmission and would advise you that while I
have no objections to the proposal from a highway point of view, I do have the
following conditional comments to make: 1. Parking spaces must be brought into use before the development is
completed, in the interests of highway safety.
2. For a garage to count towards the in curtilage parking provision it should
have minimum internal dimensions of 6m long by 3m wide. Driveways to
serve the garage should be a minimum of 6m long with an up over type
garage door or 5.5m long with a roller shutter garage door. The applicant will
need to provide car parking on the following basis; 2 and 3 bedroom houses –
2 spaces, 4 bedrooms and above 3 car parking spaces (plots 2, 17, 20, 24
and 45 are now acceptable).
3. Garage dimensions do not comply with the specification. For a garage to
count towards the in curtilage parking provision it should have minimum
internal dimensions of 6m long by 3m wide single, or 6m by 5.75m wide for a
double, to enable easy use (all garages are still undersized and cannot be
considered as providing a car parking space – only plots 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 21,
26, 29, 31, 35, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49 and 50 are acceptable)
4. Vehicular driveways to Plots 3, 4, 5 and 6, adjacent to Fabian Road, are to
be a bound bitumen material so that no driveway gravel migrates onto Fabian
Road. The fall of the new driveways will not discharge any water onto Fabian
Road but drain within curtilage
Page 42 of 78
5. Full highway construction and layout details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority, to ensure the development
is built in accordance with R&C Design Guide and Specification and hence to
adoptable standards.
6. Road safety audits will be required throughout the design and construction
of any highway works. This initial submission should be accompanied by a
combined Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit, and Stages 3 is be submitted as the
design progresses.
CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES
The main considerations in the determination of the application are;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Principle of Development
Housing Mix
Impact on neighbour amenity
Impact on character and appearance of the street scene
Highways and Transportation
Flooding and Drainage
Ecology
Geoenvironmental
Principle of Development
The application site is located within the identified development limits and is
previous developed land. Surrounding the site to the east, south and west are
residential properties. The principle of residential development in this location
is considered acceptable.
The application site is within close proximity to a number of services and is
well served by public transport. The proposed layout includes a mix of
property types reflecting the local need. The application accords with policies
CS1, CS2, CS3, CS15, CS17, CS19, CS20, DP2 and DP3 of the Local
Development Framework.
The site is a housing allocation within the Draft Local Plan (May 2016) (policy
H3.9 Former Redcar and Cleveland Town Hall, Eston). The draft policy seeks
to achieve 51 dwellings on the site including an appropriate mix of housing
types, satisfactory access, good design, landscaping throughout site,
necessary ground remediation works and sustainable drainage works. The
proposal meets the criteria within the draft policy and the application accords
with this policy.
Housing Mix
The application drawings show a mix of two, three and four bedroomed
properties and a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings. The
mix reflects the character and appearance and existing mix in the area and is
considered acceptable.
Page 43 of 78
The application does not include any provision of affordable housing. For the
purposes of the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), the
site lies within the Greater Eston North sub-area. Successive SHMAs have
identified a significant oversupply of affordable housing in Greater Eston
North. The latest SHMA confirms this oversupply in general needs affordable
housing.
Whilst there is a small need (3 units per annum) for affordable housing for
older people in Greater Eston North, this requirement will be exceeded by
ongoing affordable housing developments, funded by the Homes and
Communities Agency, in the sub-area. For these reasons, it would not be
appropriate to require an affordable housing contribution from this site.
The layout and mix of housing accords with policies CS15 and CS19 of the
Local Development Framework and the Affordable Housing Supplementary
Planning Document.
Impact on neighbour amenity
A Construction Management Plan (CMP) accompanies the application which
states the working hours on site and a number of nuisance control measures.
Sufficient separation distances are provided between the existing properties
on Fabian Road, Burns Road and Kel Dennis Close to ensure that the
development would not have an overbearing impact. The proposed layout and
separation distances ensure that there are no adverse impacts in relation to
overlooking or loss of privacy to existing properties.
The proposal subject to a number of conditions relating to construction hours
and ensuring the development is in accordance with the submitted CMP, the
development would not have an adverse impact in relation to neighbour
amenity and privacy and accords with the relevant aspects of policies DP2
and DP3 of the Local Development Framework.
Impact on character and appearance of the street scene
As stated above there is a mix in the properties proposed for the site. The
wider residential area includes a mix in the properties and the proposed layout
and properties proposed would not have an adverse impact on the street
scene along Fabian Road and Burns Road.
Materials have been indicated on the application and they are considered
acceptable along with the proposed hard surface materials. The driveways to
the properties would be permeable gravel with a meter wide tarmac strip to
prevent displacement of gravel onto the adopted highway. Permeable gravel
is considered acceptable and would help to reduce the impacts of surface
water disposal throughout the site.
Details of boundary treatments are also included within the application and
are generally close boarded timber fences with post and rail fencing on
internal boundaries between plots. The comment from the Police Architectural
Page 44 of 78
Liaison Officer in relation to the post and rail fencing is noted, however, it is
likely that most residents would replace the proposed fencing with more
substantial fencing over time. The proposed boundary treatments are
considered acceptable.
The development reflects the scale and design of existing properties in the
area and would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance
of the street scene. The proposal accords with the relevant aspects of policies
CS20, DP2 and DP3 of the Local Development Framework.
Highways
The main access to the site is off Fabian Road with the majority of properties
having access on the internal road layout. Four properties (which are to be the
sales homes) have direct access on Fabian Road with seven properties
having direct access on to Burns Road. Each plot includes a garage and in
curtilage parking on driveways to the front of the properties.
The proposed access to the site achieves the required level of visibility and
the internal road network is to the required dimensions. The turning head to
the eastern side of the site is designed as such to have the potential to access
future housing layout to the north of the application site and the layout and
access could accommodate any potential future development.
Details have been provided in relation to contractor’s car parking and
materials store and the direction of development on the site which is all
considered acceptable.
The comments in relation to garage sizes and levels of parking are noted. The
site is within a suitable location in close proximity to facilities and public
transport. The level of parking throughout the site is considered acceptable
given the location and still remains an element of landscaping and green
space to each of the properties.
The limited direct access on Burns Road would not have an adverse impact
on the operation of the highway, especially given the recent closure of the
school and the changes to traffic patterns in the area.
The proposal raises no issues in terms of parking and access and is
acceptable in relation to highways safety. The application accords with the
relevant aspects of policies DP2 and DP3 of the Local Development
Framework.
Flooding and Drainage
The application site is within flood zone 1and based on the flood maps the risk
of flooding from sea or watercourses is low. In terms of surface water flooding,
there is a risk to the eastern boundary and it is recommended that all finished
floor levels are raised to a minimum of 300mm above existing ground levels.
Page 45 of 78
All other sources of flooding have been reviewed and deemed a low or
manageable risk.
The submitted drainage assessment confirms that an agreed connection is in
place for both foul and surface water.
Northumbrian Water has confirmed that the proposal is considered acceptable
subject to condition relating to a restricted flow for surface water drainage into
the existing sewer. The comments from the Local Lead Flood Authority are
noted, however, the discharge into the NWL sewer at a restricted rate is
considered acceptable.
The application raises no issues in terms of flood risk and drainage and the
proposal accords with the NPPF.
Ecology
The site is previously developed land which consisted of two large buildings
and hard surfaced car park and access road. The buildings on the site were
demolished in 2012 and the site left vacant. The land is currently managed
grass with no notable habitats on site. Several small trees are located along
the northern and eastern boundary of the site. The application has been
accompanied by an ecology appraisal and tree survey.
The submitted tree survey confirms that the majority of trees on the site or
young to young-mature specimens and that none of the trees on site are
covered by a tree preservation order. A number of trees on the site will be
removed to facilitate the development.
The ecology appraisal confirms that there are no statutory sites within 2km of
the application site.
In terms of the habitat survey the site is amenity grassland with some trees
and shrubs on the boundaries with the majority of the area considered poor
semi-improved grassland.
In relation to protected species the survey provides the following information;
Bats
There are no buildings on site, however, some of the trees on site may have
bat roost potential and a number of trees on the site could possibly be part of
a bat foraging route.
Great Crested Newts
Given the location and habitats on site is us unlikely that newts would make
significant use of the land.
Page 46 of 78
Otters / Water Voles / Reptiles / Badgers
No signs of such species were noted on site and the land is unsuitable for
these species.
Birds
A number of species were recorded on site and the trees and shrubs on the
site could provide suitable breeding habitats for a range of urban garden
species.
Due to the location and existing nature of the land the proposal is unlikely to
have any significant adverse ecological effects. A number of mitigation
measures are proposed to limit any adverse impacts which relate to the
removal of trees and scrub outside of the bird breeding season and a full
inspection of any trees with bat roost potential prior to any removal. Subject to
the conditions the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to ecology
and landscape and accords with policies CS22 and CS24 of the Local
Development Framework.
Geoenvironmental
The application is accompanied by a geoenvironemtnal report which has
assessed the ground conditions on site. The report states that there is local
made ground on site associated with the demolished and in-filled basement
which remains on site.
There is no evidence of historical mine workings, there are no surface water
features on the site, no flood risk and no current or historical landfills recorded
within 500m of the site. The site lies within an area where there is no radon
protection measures required.
The Council’s Environmental Protection Team have reviewed the application
and a number of conditions are recommended including; the implementation
of the remediation strategy; reporting of any expected contamination and the
use of gas protection measures. Subject to the conditions the application
raises no issues in terms of contamination land impacts and the proposal
accords with policy DP7 of the Local Development Framework.
Other matters
The site is on the edge of a large area of open space and therefore is would
not be considered necessary to have the provision of open space on site.
A sustainability statement has been submitted with the application. The level
of information and the construction details are acceptable and therefore there
is no requirement for a condition relating to the provision of 10% embedded
renewable energy methods.
Page 47 of 78
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out in the report above the proposal is considered
acceptable. The site is within a sustainable location and within an established
residential area. The proposal raises no issues in terms of highways safety,
flooding, ecology, contaminated land, neighbour amenity or crime prevention.
The design, scale and layout of the proposal are acceptable and the
application would not have an adverse impact on the character and
appearance of the area. The application accords with the NPPF, policies CS1,
CS2, CS3, CS15, CS17, CS19, CS20, CS22, CS24, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5,
DP6 and DP7 of the adopted Local Development Framework, policy H3.9 of
the emerging Draft Local Plan and the guidance set out in the relevant
supplementary planning documents.
RECOMMENDATION
Taking into account the content of the report the recommendation is to:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS
1.
The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of THREE
YEARS from the date of this permission.
REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990.
2.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans (including details of materials,
landscaping and boundary treatments):
1416.04.01 Rev E received by the Local Planning Authority on
17.05.2016
1416.04.01 Rev D (in so far as it relates to the direction of construction
only) received by the Local Planning Authority on 11.05.2016
SD-111 Rev B received by the Local Planning Authority on 11.05.2016
SD700 Rev A received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
SD701 Rev A received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
SD703 Rev B received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
SD712 Rev B received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
SD-100 Rev D received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
SD103 Rev B received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
403/1H received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
404/1F received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
201/1F received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
309/1E received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
302/1G received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
202/1F received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
Page 48 of 78
307/1B received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
304/1E received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
401/1G received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
301/1G received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
405/1E received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
303/1Ereceived by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
310/1D received by the Local Planning Authority on 29.03.2016
REASON: To accord with the terms of the planning application.
3.
Development shall be implemented in line with the drainage scheme
contained within the submitted document entitled Drainage Assessment.
The drainage scheme shall ensure that foul flows discharge manhole
7301, and ensure that surface water discharges to manhole 7323 at a
restricted rate of 6 l/sec.
REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding from any sources in
accordance with the NPPF.
4.
The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance
with its terms, prior to the commencement of development other than
that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be
given two weeks written notification of commencement of the
remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified
in the approved remediation scheme, a verification that demonstrates the
effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is
subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future
users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with
those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to
ensure that the development can be carried out safely without
unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
5.
In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out
the approved development that was not previously identified it must be
reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An
investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance
with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority, and where
remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared,
which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation
scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the
approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future
users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with
those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to
ensure that the development can be carried out safely without
unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
Page 49 of 78
6.
Gas protection measures shall be installed in accordance with
BS8485:2015 Code of practice for the design of protective measures for
methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings. Following
completion of installation, a verification report that demonstrates the
effectiveness of the installation of the gas protection measures carried
out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the
Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future
users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, and to ensure
that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable
risks to future users of the land.
7.
The development approved shall be completed in accordance with the
details outlined in the Construction Management Plan received by the
Local Planning Authority on 26.03.2016. The Construction Management
Plan relates to site operating hours, delivery details, contractors car
parking, compound storage, construction vehicular route, dust control,
wheel washing, noise pollution and storage of materials.
REASON: In the interest of neighbour amenity and to reduce and
potential adverse impacts during construction.
8.
Prior to work commencing on any of the plots requiring pile foundations a
noise and vibration assessment shall be carried out to assess the
likelihood of adverse impacts on nearby noise sensitive properties.
Where adverse impacts are identified then a scheme of works detailing
how the impacts will be reduced to acceptable levels shall be submitted
for the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The
assessment should have due regard to the advice and guidance
contained in British Standard BS5228:2009 Code of practice for noise
and vibration control on construction and open sites.
REASON: To protect the amenities of occupiers of any nearby premises
from noise and minimise the risk of vibration damage to neighbouring
buildings.
9.
Prior to the occupation of any dwelling on the site the parking spaces
associated with that dwelling shall be completed and brought into use.
REASON: In the interest of highways safety.
10. Prior to the commencement of development full highway construction
and layout details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority, to ensure the development is built in accordance
with R&C Design Guide and Specification and hence to adoptable
standards.
REASON: In the interest of highways safety.
Page 50 of 78
STATEMENT OF COOPERATIVE WORKING
The Local Planning Authority considers that the application as originally
submitted did not meet with the local policies and guidance. Following
discussions with the applicant / agent a satisfactory scheme has been
negotiated.
Page 51 of 78
Page 52 of 78
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
Planning (Development Management)
APPLICATION NUMBER: R/2016/0154/RMM
LOCATION:
LAND SOUTH OF MARSKE ROAD SALTBURN
PROPOSAL:
APPLICATION FOR RESERVED MATTERS
APPROVAL (APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING,
LAYOUT AND SCALE) FOR ERECTION OF 116
DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED GARAGING,
SUB-STATION, PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE,
LANDSCAPING AND ANCILLARY WORKS
PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PLANNING
PERMISSION GRANTED ON APPEAL
REFERENCE APP/V0728/W/15/3006780 DATED
16 DECEMBER 2015
APPLICATION SITE AND DESCRIPTION
Reserved Matters approval relating to the appearance, landscaping, layout
and scale is sought for the erection of 116 dwellings and associated garages,
sub-station, provision of open space and landscaping pursuant to Outline
Planning Permission relating to appeal decision APP/V0728/W/15/3006780
dated 16 December 2015.
The application site compromises 5.83ha (14.4acres) of land currently in
agricultural use. The site is bound by Marske Road to the north, agricultural
fields to the south and west and existing residential development to the east
on Wilton Bank. On the western boundary the site abuts a riding school. The
site relatively flat and benefits form mature landscaping to its boundaries.
Outline planning permission was granted on appeal for residential
development of up to 130 dwellings. Access was considered at the outline
stage, with all other matters being reserved for future approval. The previous
application and appeal decision established the principle of the development
of the site for new housing.
The reserved matters application seeks to deal with the matters set out
above. The application is supported by;
•
•
•
•
•
•
Detailed layout plan
House type elevation and floor plans
Boundary treatment details
Landscaping proposals
Surface treatment plan
Materials Plan
Page 53 of 78
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires
that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with
the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
REDCAR & CLEVELAND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (LDF)
CORE STRATEGY DPD
CS1 Securing a Better Quality of Life
CS15 Delivering Mixed and Balanced Communities and Quality Homes
CS17 Housing Density
CS20 Promoting Good Design
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES DPD
DP2 Location of Development
DP3 Sustainable Design
EMERGING LOCAL PLAN
Following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework, the
Council agreed to prepare a new Local Plan to replace the Local
Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Policies DPDs. A
Draft Local Plan was agreed in September 2013, which was subject to public
consultation. The outcomes of the consultation were taken into account in
preparing a Publication Local Plan, which the Borough Council resolved not to
approve in July 2014. The evidence base that was used to support the
preparation of the Publication Local Plan will continue to be material in the
consideration of planning applications until superseded by new evidence. A
revised Local Plan is currently under preparation. Until the adoption of the
new local plan planning applications are required to be assessed against
current relevant policy in the LDF the NPPF and all other material planning
considerations.
OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS
Design of Residential Areas Supplementary Planning Document
Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document
PLANNING HISTORY
R/2014/0631/OOM Outline application for residential development up to 130
dwellings (Class C3) with provision of access from Marske Road, associated
Page 54 of 78
landscaping and ancillary works. Refused 9 January 2015 allowed on appeal
16 December 2015.
RESULTS OF CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY
As a result of the public consultation process 6 letters of objection have been
received raising the following comments;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Disappointed at lack of a Pegasus Crossing to support the riding
school due to increasing traffic numbers on a busy road
The Taylor Wimpey website map shows the proposed dwelling, a two
storey house, closest to the existing houses on Marske Road, to be
very tight up, without any landscaping at this end of the development.
Given that our ground floor windows face west, we will have the gable
end of a proposed new property within two or three metres of our
property.
We support the suggestion of putting some of the landscaping features
at the junction of the new and existing housing (perhaps including the
children's play area) at the north-east corner of the development. This
would shift the footprint of the development south-west, as there is a lot
of 'gap' at the far side of the area to be developed.
The appeal decision states that ‘bungalows will be built on the southern
boundary to minimise intrusion of views’. There is a serious shortage of
bungalows in Saltburn and bungalows should be built on the eastern
boundary where there are already bungalows on Wilton Bank.
Obviously, according to the plan, the intrusion of views of the current
householders are not to be considered. I believe the current plan fails
to comply with the appeal decision.
We were told that the properties on the new estate backing onto Wilton
Bank would have an extra 5 metres of garden. However, in some
cases, half of the extra 5 metres of garden has been filled with
garages. Again, this is another non-compliance of the appeal decision.
Planning permission should not be given for any property without a
family car sized garage and a double drive.
We should be building with the future in mind; all properties should
have solar panels incorporated in the build.
For safety reasons, there should be a road link between the new estate
and Wilton Bank estate. When there was a serious accident near the
entrance of the Wilton Bank estate, the road was closed to traffic for
over 3 hours.
The proposed houses abutting the Liverton Whin junction are very
cramped together with virtually no separation from properties at the
end of Liverton Whin. This is in stark contrast to the rest of the
proposed site plan which has a relatively spacious layout created by
attractive landscaping throughout. The compaction at the Liverton Whin
juncture is a design flaw: it is detrimental to the "appearance in the
street scene" as well as to "occupiers of nearby properties".
Page 55 of 78
•
A solution for a cohesive integration of the two housing estates at this
juncture would be:- remove the four proposed houses, [12-13 /14-15]
which flank Liverton Whin and replace them with landscaping.
• The approximately 56 year old stub end to Liverton Whin is a hazard
which would never pass planning permission in this day and age.
There is no turning circle where the road meets the field. Many drivers
come down Liverton Whin and are 'caught out' by the abrupt end to the
road and struggle to turn around their vehicles without the expected
facility of a turning circle. We, and our neighbours opposite, have
regularly had our garden walls damaged by vehicles reversing into
them. Worse still, children play in this unsafe 'dead end' of Liverton
Whin road.
• 22 Liverton Whin is 2.5 feet from the boundary in places. A 2 storey
property is planned adjacent to me which will deprive me of my right to
natural light on my end bedroom window and my lounge. My front
garden will be in shadow for half the days it is sunny.
•
•
•
•
Why can’t bungalows be built all along the fence? Move the affordable
houses to the play area and even out the properties using all the space
to give properties more room
The development is not needed. There are currently 177 houses for
sale within Saltburn ranging from £760,000 to £59,500. Thus covering
all types of buyers.
The only people who are going to benefit for this development are the
land owner and Taylor Wimpey. Whereas the residents of the town are
going to suffer, suffer with more traffic, more pollution, less school
places, less places at the doctors and depreciating house prices, just to
name a few.
The development is for 116, sole less echo chambers. Houses that are
available to buy anywhere in the country, the architectural equivalent to
Ikea furniture.
•
If you grant permission then please make it on the condition that they
design them with thought, houses that look like they should be there,
houses that add something to the area instead of taking it away and
making it look like every other new build estate in the country.
• Still disagree with the planning permission when you are closing the
boundary between Saltburn and Marske
• When it does go ahead you do not allow Liverton Whin to be connected
as this would mean cars are going to be a bigger problem on Wilton
Bank.
•
•
Liverton Whin is unsafe for use by children as a walkway. There is no
pavement at the end of the cul-de-sac & vehicles have difficulty turning
in restricted space & often do so in a hurry having turned into the culde-sac by mistake. There is a much safer option for access between
no's 23 & 25 Wilton Bank with pavement both sides which could also
be used as an emergency link benefitting the existing & new estates.
Lack of an emergency link (for emergency service vehicles)
Page 56 of 78
•
Concern over the extremely close proximity of proposed housing to the
existing properties at numbers 22 and 33 Liverton Whin and number 57
Marske Road
Saltburn Marske and New Marske Parish Council
Request that development submits information of street lighting, as required
by Cleveland Police and where have they built in Safer by Design, also
requested by Cleveland Police. High visibility lighting is required. Could you
please provide confirmation that the correct lighting will be installed, when
received.
Northumbrian Water
In making our response to the local planning authority Northumbrian Water
will assess the impact of the proposed development on our assets and assess
the capacity within Northumbrian Water’s network to accommodate and treat
the anticipated flows arising from the development. We do not offer comment
on aspects of planning applications that are outside of our area of control.
Having assessed the proposed development against the context outlined
above I can confirm that at this stage we would have no comments to make
on the appearance, landscaping, layout or scale of the development.
Cleveland Police ALO
Applicant should actively seek to achieve Secured by Design accreditation for
the development .In any case I would encourage them to make contact with
me at an early stage for any input/advice I can offer. I would, at this stage,
mention that developers should ensure that the security of a development is
not compromised by excessive permeability and that adequate street lighting
be installed for all areas of the development, including all non- adopted
highways, e.g. shared surfaces, shared drives.
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Archaeological Consultant
There are no designated or undesignated heritage assets likely to be affected
directly by the proposal and the proposed appearance and layout of the
development will not harm the settings of such assets.
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Development Engineers)
No objection to the proposed development
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Environmental Protection
(Nuisance)
No objection to the proposed development
Page 57 of 78
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Environmental Protection
(Contamination)
No objection to the proposed development
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Rights of Way Officer)
No objection to the proposed development
CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES
The main issue to be considered in the determination of this application is
whether the Reserved Matters submitted pursuant to the outline planning
permission allowed on appeal are acceptable.
In this regard the Local Planning Authority is not entitled to re-consider the
principle of the development which has now been established through the
grant of permission on appeal. It must restrict its consideration of the
application only to the details of the scheme when assessed against the
outline permission, relevant policy in the National Planning Policy Framework
and detailed policies set out in the Local Development Framework and
associated Supplementary Planning Documents.
The submission relates to four of the prescribed reserved matters and these
are;
•
•
•
•
Appearance
Layout
Scale
Landscaping
Appearance
The scale of the development and the housing mix proposed is considered
appropriate given the prevailing built form in the locality whilst achieving a
mixed and balanced community.
The core of the development will be the medium density housing in a series of
cul-de –sacs. The development will have a main spine access road running
north to south through the site. Off this main spine road there are a number of
cul-de-sacs and side roads.
The application is supported by a materials plan, a boundary treatment plan
and details of the boundary treatments. While the details regarding materials
are set out on the submitted plans, it is considered necessary for samples of
the materials to be submitted prior to these being finally agreed and this
matter will be agreed by way of the discharge of the appropriate appeal
condition on the outline approval. With regard to both the details and
location of the means of enclosure, these are considered to be acceptable.
Page 58 of 78
It is considered that the reserved matters submitted in respect of appearance
are consistent with the terms of the outline permission and reflect the
development strategy set out in the Design and Access Statement and
illustrative master plans. The proposal is generally consistent with key
planning polices set out in the LDF and the supplementary planning guidance
set out in relevant design SPDs.
Layout
Both the outline application and the reserve matters submission have
responded to key planning principles set out in the Council’s adopted
supplementary planning guidance, Design of Residential Areas SPD and
Urban Design Guidelines SPD.
It is noted that concerns have been raised, as a result of consultation on the
application, with regard to the relationship of the dwellings on the east
boundary of the development site and the existing dwellings on Wilton Bank,
Liverton Whin and 57 Marske Road. Each of these relationships is
considered below;
Wilton Bank
The properties on Wilton Bank, adjacent to plots 20 to 29 on the development
site, are bungalows. The development layout has been designed to ensure
that the new dwellings are not overbearing when viewed form the adjoining
properties. As a result, plots 20 - 29 have been designed with extra-long
gardens resulting separation distances between 27.5m (90’) and 31m (101’).
As a general design standard the deign guide requires a separation of 21m
(68’) between properties on level site. On this particular part of the
development the relationship is between single storey and two storey
dwellings and so the additional separation distance will maintain an
appropriate level of privacy.
Liverton Whin
The two properties that adjoin the application site on Liverton Whin are nos.
22 and 33 both detached dwellings on the eastern boundary of the site.
22 Liverton Whin adjoins plots 14 and 17 on the development site, with plot 14
being that closest to the existing property. The proposed property at plot 14 is
one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings and has a blank gable end
which will face onto the side elevation of 22 Liverton Whin. It is noted that 22
Liverton Whin has a window at first floor on the side elevation, serving as a
secondary window to a room at first floor. The separation distance between
the proposed dwelling and the existing property on Liverton Whin is 9.0m and
it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would have a significant
adverse impact on the amenity of the occupants of that property.
Page 59 of 78
33 Liverton Whin adjoins plots 13 and plot 1, with plot 13 being that closest to
the existing property. The proposed property at plot 13 is one half of a pair of
semi-detached dwellings and has a downstairs W/C window in the gable end
which will face onto the side elevation of 33 Liverton Whin. It is noted that 33
Liverton Whin has a window at first floor on the side elevation. The
separation distance between the proposed dwelling and the existing property
on Liverton Whin is 9.0m and it is not considered that the proposed new
dwelling would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the occupants of
that dwelling.
Comments have been received suggesting that plots 12-13 and 14-15 are
removed from the scheme due to their proximity to existing properties on
Liverton Whin and this would allow this area to be landscaped giving a more
‘harmonious integration of existing and new houses’. These comments have
been noted, however it is not considered necessary, from a planning point of
view, for these plots to be removed as the relationship to the exiting dwellings
on Liverton Whin is one that is considered acceptable.
57 Marske Road
The property on Marske Road is a two storey detached dwelling accessed
from Marske Road. The dwelling adjoins plot 1 on the development site. The
proposed property has a blank gable end facing onto 57 Marske Road, while it
is also noted that the gable end of 57 Marske Road closest to the
development site has two secondary side windows at ground floor. It is
considered that while the separation distance at its closest point is 5.0m (16’)
the development will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of
the existing dwelling.
With regard to the relationship of the proposed dwellings within the site, there
are a small number of plots which are marginally below the separation
distance set out in the Design of Residential Places SPD but this is not
considered to be, in this case, a reason to refuse reserved matters approval.
Concerns have been raised with regard to a pedestrian access proposed onto
Liverton Whin. The concerns are that the pedestrian access will link onto a
section of public highway that does not have a footpath, therefore impacting
on pedestrian safety. These concerns have been considered and raised with
the Development Engineers, who have advised that a footpath could be
installed under Sec 278 of the Highway Act. Notwithstanding this, the area lies
at the end of a short length of road which limits vehicle speeds, the comments
in respect of pedestrian safety are noted but given the nature of this access
no planning issues are raised that merit a refusal of approval in this case.
Officers consider the reserved matters submitted in respect of layout are
consistent with the terms of the outline permission and reflect the
development strategy set out in the D& A Statement and illustrative master
plans. The proposal is consistent with key planning polices set out in the LDF
and the supplementary planning guidance set out in relevant design SPDs.
Page 60 of 78
Scale
The development of the site will be for predominantly two storey family
dwellings of traditional design and construction, along with the provision of
bungalows on the southern boundary of the site. There are 13 different house
types providing a suitable mix of design and built form.
Given the context for the site, adjacent to an area of mixed single and two
storey housing to the east, the scale of the proposed development is
considered acceptable and will relate well to the adjoining urban form.
Moreover, because the development is on the edge of the built up area, the
scale of the development and its relationship to the open land to the north,
south and west has been considered as part of the reserved matters
submission. The proposed two storey dwellings on the Marske Road frontage
are considered to be acceptable given the dwellings to the east towards
Saltburn are also predominantly two storeys.
The reserved matters submission is respect of massing is considered to be
broadly consistent with the design principles set out in the D&A Statement.
The development responds well to its setting and proposes an appropriate
urban extension to the town; it recognises the prevailing built form in the
locality; responds to the site constraints identified in the D&A Statement and
sets out details of a development which will not be out of scale with its
surroundings.
Officers consider the reserved matters submitted in respect of scale are
consistent with the terms of the outline permission and reflect the
development strategy set out in the updated D&A Statement and illustrative
master plans. The proposal is consistent with key planning polices set out in
the LDF and relevant design SPDs.
Landscaping
Detailed landscaping plans have been submitted as part of this application.
The submitted plans have detailed the mix of trees, shrubs and hedges on the
site, as well as detailing the quantity and size of the individual specimens.
The development is proposed to have landscaping buffers to the north, west
and south of the site.
At the north of the site adjacent to the public highway (Marske Road), there is
a proposed mix of grassed areas, wildflower grass mix, hedges and a mix of
native woodland and new trees. It is considered that the proposed mix of
landscaping treatments will soften the appearance of the development when
viewed from the public highway and the public footpaths to the north of the
site.
On the west boundary of the site there is a proposed mix of grassed areas,
native woodland and new trees. It is considered that the proposed mix of
Page 61 of 78
landscaping treatments will soften the appearance of the development when
viewed from the public highway and the public footpaths to the south and west
of the site.
On the southern boundary of the site there is again a proposed mix of grassed
areas, native woodland and new trees. It is also proposed to include a natural
play area within the landscaped area at the south of the site. It is considered
that the proposed mix of landscaping treatments will soften the appearance of
the development when viewed from the public footpaths to the south of the
site.
The detailed plans illustrate that the front gardens and open highway verges
are to be laid to grass, with a number of these being enclosed by hedges.
Officers consider the reserved matters submitted in respect of landscaping
are consistent with the terms of the outline permission and reflect the
development strategy set out in the updated D&A Statement and illustrative
master plans. The proposal is consistent with key planning polices set out in
the LDF and the supplementary planning guidance set out in design relevant
SPDs.
Affordable Housing and Dwelling Mix
The proposed layout plan detailing the house types illustrates the mix of
market housing and affordable units. The affordable units have been spread
out throughout the site. The units are proposed is small groups which respond
to the policy of ‘pepper potting’ of the units throughout the site. It is therefore
considered that the proposal is consistent with the terms of the Outline
application and the Section 106 agreement.
Crime Prevention
The layout introduces opportunities for both passive and active surveillance in
order to reduce opportunities for crime, the proposed development responds
to key elements of the Design of Residential Areas SPD and there is no
reason to conclude the development would be any more vulnerable to crime
that is normally the case.
Other matters
The issue has been raised in respect of the provision of a Pegasus crossing
to facilitate the crossing of the main road by users of the adjoining stables.
This request is noted, however, such a planning obligation was not requested
at the outline application stage nor does in form part of the Section 106
agreement completed in respect of the subsequent appeal decision. There
are two issues raised in respect of this request, the first is that such an
obligation, in view of the appeal decision, is not included in the present
section 106 agreement and the second is that such a request is likely to fail
the tests of a planning obligation site out in the NPPF in that the obligation is
not required to make the development acceptable. The second is that there is
no requirement for a developer not to enter into such an agreement in respect
Page 62 of 78
of this issue at the reserved matters stage, nor can be included now as a
planning condition.
CONCLUSION
The application seeks to develop the application site for new housing. The site
benefits from outline permission which established the principle of residential
development at the site. The comments that have been received in respect of
the consultation that still object to the development of the suite are noted but
can carry no weight ion the determination of the application for reserved
matters approval. The detailed comments received in respect of the detail of
the development are noted but, for the reasons set out, above the submission
is considered acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION
Taking into account the content of the report the recommendation is to:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans:
Drawing No 100:00 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No 100:01 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No 100:BTD received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No 100:02 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No 2638/1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No 2638/2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PD32/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PD32/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No ZA35/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No ZA35/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No ZA26/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No ZA26/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PD49/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PD49/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PD49*/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on
10/03/16
Drawing No PD49*/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on
10/03/16
Drawing No PA34/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PA34/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PD411/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on
10/03/16
Page 63 of 78
Drawing No PD411/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on
10/03/16
Drawing No 722/5/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No 722/5/PL3 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PrB/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PrB/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PT43/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PT43/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PA44/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PA44/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PA44/6/PL2 (REN) received by the Local Planning Authority on
10/03/16
Drawing No PA44*/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on
10/03/16
Drawing No PA44*/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on
10/03/16
Drawing No PA48/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No PA48/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 10/03/16
Drawing No NYWD/6/PL1 received by the Local Planning Authority on
10/03/16
Drawing No NYWD/6/PL2 received by the Local Planning Authority on
10/03/16
REASON: To accord with the terms of the planning application.
STATEMENT OF COOPERATIVE WORKING
The Local Planning Authority considers that the application as originally
submitted is a satisfactory scheme and therefore no negotiations have been
necessary.
Page 64 of 78
Page 65 of 78
AGENDA ITEM 7
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION
TO THE MEMBERS OF REGULATORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY 2 JUNE 2016
DECISIONS ISSUED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Attached at Enclosure 1 is a schedule of delegated decisions determined by
the Director of Regeneration under the delegated powers procedure.
For Information
Page 66 of 78
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
List of Delegated Decisions
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
HN0011/2016
SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR EXTENDING 4.00 METRES
BEYOND THE REAR WALL OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE; MAXIMUM
HEIGHT 2.90 METRES; HEIGHT TO EAVES 2.10 METRES
3 FABIAN ROAD ESTON TS6 9BL
MR K TIERNEY
CROWN CONSERVATORIES/BUILDERS
Decision:
Date of Decision:
HOUSEHOLDER PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED
4 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
HN0013/2016
SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION EXTENDING 6.00 METRES
BEYOND THE REAR WALL OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE; MAXIMUM
HEIGHT 3.675 METRES; HEIGHT TO EAVES 2.50 METRES
41 ORMESBY BANK ORMESBY TS7 9HJ
MR S WOOD
PMT DESIGN SERVICES LTD
Decision:
Date of Decision:
HOUSEHOLDER PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED
4 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
HN0014/2016
SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION EXTENDING 4.080 METRES
BEYOND THE REAR WALL OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE; MAXIMUM
HEIGHT 3.100 METRES; HEIGHT TO EAVES 2.340 METRES
7 RANDOLPH STREET SALTBURN BY THE SEA TS12 1LN
MR DARREN PAGE
DD DESIGN LTD
Decision:
Date of Decision:
HOUSEHOLDER PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED
4 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
HN0015/2016
SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION EXTENDING 3.500 METRES
BEYOND THE REAR WALL OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE; MAXIMUM
HEIGHT 3.980 METRES; HEIGHT TO EAVES 2.863 METRES
28 CANTERBURY ROAD BROTTON TS12 2XG
MRS LISA WOOD
DD DESIGN LTD
Decision:
Date of Decision:
HOUSEHOLDER PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED
4 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
HN0016/2016
SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION EXTENDING 4.095 METRES
BEYOND THE REAR WALL OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE; MAXIMUM
HEIGHT 3.600 METRES; HEIGHT TO EAVES 2.500 METRES
50 GILL STREET GUISBOROUGH TS14 6EH
MRS M MCMAHON
A L PARTNERSHIP
Decision:
Date of Decision:
HOUSEHOLDER PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Page 67 of 78
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
HN0017/2016
SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION EXTENDING 4.00 METRES
BEYOND THE REAR WALL OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE; MAXIMUM
HEIGHT 3.80 METRES; HEIGHT TO EAVES 2.40 METRES
20 BOULBY DRIVE LOFTUS TS13 4JN
MRS G RICHARDSON
MRS G RICHARDSON
Decision:
Date of Decision:
HOUSEHOLDER PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
R/2016/0198/OO
OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF
EIGHT, SINGLE-STOREY, BUNGALOW DWELLINGHOUSES FOR
THE ELDERLY AND/OR DISABLED
SITE TO SOUTH OF CHURCH DRIVE (WEST OF SALTERS LANE)
BOOSBECK
MR MARTIN SHUTT
ANTON LANG PLANNING SERVICES LTD
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
Decision:
Date of Decision:
REFUSE OUTLINE CONSENT
Reasons for refusal:
1. The application site is located on the edge, but outside the identified
development limits as shown on the Council's Local Development
Framework (LDF) Proposal Map and in a location where development
will not be permitted, unless it meets one of the specified policy
exceptions set out in policy DP1 (Development Limits). The development
proposed does not meet any of the policy exceptions and is therefore in
conflict with policy DP1 of the development plan.
2. The development represents a departure from the development plan
and since the Council is currently able to demonstrate a five year supply
of deliverable housing sites, the information submitted with the
application is not considered sufficient to justify a departure from policy in
this case.
3. The application site is located on the edge of Boosbeck, a low order
settlement where there are limited services and in an area which has not
been identified as an area of housing growth in the adopted and
emerging development plan, it is considered therefore the application
proposes unsustainable development for which there is no objectively
evidenced demonstrable local need.
In view of the above the application is contrary to policies DP1, CS2 and
CS19 of the Local Development Framework and there are no grounds for
a departure from policy in this case.
19 May 2016
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0193/RS
EXTENSION AT SIDE TO FORM COVERED VACUUM BAY (PART
RETROSPECTIVE RESUBMISSION)
HOLLYMEAD SERVICE STATION BOLCKOW STREET
GUISBOROUGH TS14 6EJ
EXPRESS CAR WASH
MR N POULTER
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
11 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Page 68 of 78
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0041/CA
ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING GARDEN TO FORM TERRACING WITH
RETAINING STONE WALLS; NEW PATHS; GATES AND PLANTING
SALTBURN CLIFF LIFT FOSSIL GARDEN MARINE PARADE
SALTBURN BY THE SEA TS12 1HQ
SALTBURN IN BLOOM - MRS L PARKES
SALTBURN IN BLOOM - MRS L PARKES
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
5 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0078/FF
DETACHED STEEL CLAD WORKSHOP AND STORAGE BUILDING
CLEVESTONE WORKS SLAPEWATH TS14 6ET
MR ROBERT GOODISON
MR ROBERT GOODISON
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
9 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0130/CA
DETACHED CONTROL CABINET
LOFTUS MILL LIVERTON ROAD LOFTUS TS13 4PY
NORTHUMBRIAN WATER LTD
AMEC FOSTER WHEELER
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
5 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0055/FF
CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS A4 (DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT)
TO CLASS D1 NON-RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTION (PLACE OF
WORSHIP) WITH ANCILLARY FACILITIES (TRAINING &
CONFERENCE/COFFEE LOUNGE/BISTRO AND GIFT SHOP)
FORMER LINGDALE WORKING MENS CLUB HIGH STREET
LINGDALE TS12 3EX
THE WORSHIP CENTRE
THE WORSHIP CENTRE
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
5 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0194/RS
CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER ALLOTMENT GARDENS AS AN
EXTENSION OF APPROVED 6 LOG CABIN HOLIDAY LET
DEVELOPMENT; ERECTION OF 10 CAMPING PODS AND AMENITIES
BUIILDING; PROVISION OF 10 TOURING CARAVAN PITCHES AND
ASSOCIATED VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CAR PARKING (14
SPACES) (RESUBMISSION)
POWDER HOUSE FIELD DEEPDALE SKINNINGROVE TS13 4AP
KASKANE HOLIDAYS LTD
MR P WILSON
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Location:
Page 69 of 78
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0125/FF
CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF SHOP (CLASS A1) WITH
LIVING ACCOMMODATION TO 3 BEDROOM PRIVATE DWELLING
INCLUDING TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION; SINGLE STOREY
REAR EXTENSION; REMOVAL OF EXISTING SHOP FRONT
REPLACE WITH BAY WINDOW AND JULIETTE BALCONY TO REAR
145 HIGH STREET WEST REDCAR TS10 1SE
MR ZACHARY THORPE
AL PARTNERSHIP
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
19 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0200/FF
CHANGE OF USE FROM VACANT FACTORY (CLASS B2) TO
TRAMPOLINE PARK (CLASS D2)
UNIT 30 MILHOME AVENUE SKELTON INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
SKELTON-IN-CLEVELAND
ENDEAVOUR LEISURE (UK) LTD
SHUTTLEWORTH PICKNETT & ASSOCIATES
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0218/FF
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE
STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR / SIDE AND EXTENSION TO
EXISTING REAR GARDEN RETAINING WALL
9 DEW LANE ORMESBY TS7 9AR
MR ERIC ROBINSON
ADAPT ARCHITECTURAL SOLUTIONS LTD
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0192/RS
SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO WEST SIDE ELEVATION
(AMENDED SCHEME) (RESUBMISSION)
1 HEMBLE HILL FARM COTTAGE MIDDLESBROUGH ROAD
GUISBOROUGH TS14 8JT
MRS A KNAGGS
CLOSE, GRANGER, GRAY & WILKIN
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
6 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0169/FF
SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR
14 THE CRESCENT MARSKE BY THE SEA TS11 7BJ
MRS SARAH BROWN
MRS SARAH BROWN
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
10 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Location:
Page 70 of 78
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0174/FF
SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR AND FIRST FLOOR
EXTENSION ABOVE GARAGE AT SIDE
9 ABBEY COURT ESTON TS6 9BU
MR & MRS F KAY
PMT DESIGN SERVICES LTD
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0179/FF
SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR AND SIDE
40 WHEATLANDS DRIVE MARSKE BY THE SEA TS11 6DJ
MISS YVONNE ASTON
MISS YVONNE ASTON
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0189/FF
TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION
20 WALMER CRESCENT NEW MARSKE TS11 8BS
MR M TORKAMANZADEH
G R HENDERSON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0157/FF
REMOVAL OF EXISTING GARAGE DOOR AND REPLACE WITH
WINDOW TO FORM HABITABLE ROOM INCLUDING NEW PITCHED
ROOF
12 ESHER AVENUE NORMANBY TS6 0SH
MR RICHARD LAMBERT
MR RICHARD LAMBERT
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0159/FF
SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT FRONT
29 HOWARD DRIVE MARSKE BY THE SEA TS11 7EH
MRS TRACEY CLARK
D. D. DESIGN LTD
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0161/FF
EXTENSION TO EXISTING FRONT DORMER AND INSTALLATION OF
DORMER AT REAR
18 GRANVILLE TERRACE REDCAR TS10 3AP
MR & MRS ANDREW WILSON
D. D. DESIGN LTD
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
17 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Page 71 of 78
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0190/AD
DISPLAY OF 2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FASCIA SIGNS AND 1
NON ILLUMINATED FASCIA PANEL; 2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED
PROJECTION SIGNS AND WINDOW VINYL DETAIL
SPECSAVERS OPTICIANS 57 HIGH STREET REDCAR TS10 3BZ
SPECSAVERS OPTICAL SUPERSTORE LTD
HAWES SIGNS LIMITED
Decision:
Date of Decision:
APPROVE ADVERT CONSENT
6 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0199/AD
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED HANGING SIGN
23 REGENTS WALK REDCAR TS10 3FB
VODAFONE LIMITED
GLEEDS BUILDING SURVEYING LTD.
Decision:
Date of Decision:
APPROVE ADVERT CONSENT
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Applicant:
Agent:
R/2016/0105/LB
LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF 3 WINDOWS
TO REAR ELEVATION WITH TIMBER DOUBLE GLAZED UNITS
FLAT 4 ALEXANDRA HOUSE 19 MARINE PARADE SALTBURN BY
THE SEA TS12 1EU
MR RICHARD GREENWOOD
MR RICHARD GREENWOOD
Decision:
Date of Decision:
GRANT LISTED BUILDING CONSENT
16 May 2016
Application Number:
Proposal:
Location:
Page 72 of 78
Agenda Item 8
SCHEDULE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
(Development Management)
Period: 4 May – 23 May 2016
Serial
E0007/
2014
Authorised Date
Development
Manager on 17
March 2014.
Breach of Planning Control
Former Chapel Arlington
Street Loftus
Building adversely affecting
the amenity of the
Neighbourhood.
Enforcement Action
New Section 330
Notice served on 21
August 2014.
Remarks
In escheat. In the hands of
Crown Estates.
E0153/
2014
Development
Manager on 04 July
2014.
LAND ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF MIDDLESBROUGH
ROAD EAST UPSALL
GUISBOROUGH USE OF
STATIC CARAVAN AS A
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
Served Enforcement
Notice for Removal of
Residential caravan
and change of use of
agricultural land on
07 August 2014
Provisional Court date on
22 June 2016.
E0334/
2013
Regulatory Services
Manager on 08
August 2014
UNAUTHORISED MOBILE
HOME PARK HOUSE
REDCAR ROAD
DUNSDALE
GUISBOROUGH
Served Enforcement
Notice on 09 April
2014
Site visit to be carried out
to confirm compliance. If
notice has not been
complied with prosecution
proceedings will be
indicated.
E0367/
2014
Regulatory Services
Manager on 06
February 2015
TOCKETTS MILL CARAVAN
PARK GUISBOROUGH
TS14 6QA
ALLEGED USE OF
CARAVAN SITE AS
RESIDENTIAL
Served PCN on 06
February 2015
Further evidence
requested from individuals
for further evidence or
face to face meeting by
end of June 2016.
E0128/
2014
Regulatory Services
Manager on 13
February 2015
YEARBY FARM
Served PCN on 13
YEARBY ROAD
February 2015
YEARBY TS11 8HF – Breach
of Condition. Residential use
of holiday cottage.
Information requested by
28th May 2016 confirming
compliance with condition.
E0105/
2015
Regulatory Services
Manager on 25th
September 2015
FORMER MAGNET HOTEL
BIRCHINGTON AVENUE
GRANGETOWN
MIDDLESBROUGH
TS6 7HU
Served S215 notice
on 25th September
2015
Provisional Court date on
22 June 2016.
E0200/
2015
Regulatory Services
Manager on 28th
October 2015
Former Royal Hotel
Whitby Road, Loftus
TS13 4LQ. Untidy building.
Served S330 notice
on 02nd November
2015.
Letter sent requesting
update on developing site
or formal action to
commence to tidy up site.
E0207/
2015
Regulatory Services
Manager on 8th
January 2016
1 RIPLEY CLOSE
Served Enforcement
SKELTON-IN-CLEVELAND
Notice to reduce the
SALTBURN BY THE SEA
height of the raised
TS12 2GL. Without planning
platform and
outbuilding.
permission the erection of a
raised platform and an
outbuilding
Page 73 of 78
Appeal received. Awaiting
Planning Inspectors
decision.
E0258/
2015
Regulatory Services
Manager on 5th
February 2016
Former Hollymead Filling
Station, Bolckow Street,
Guisborough Without
planning permission the
erection of a metal side
extension.
Served Enforcement
Notice to remove
metal side extension
in its entirety.
Application approved on
11th May 2016
R/2016/0193/RS
Case closed.
E0280/
2015
Regulatory Services
Manager on 17th
February 2016
89 Normanby Road,
Normanby. Building in decay.
Served S215 notice
on 17th February
2016.
Compliance date of 18th
June 2016.
E0028/
2016
Regulatory Services
Manager on 6th April
2016
Scrapyard, 2 Old Station
Road, South Bank. Static
caravan
Served PCN on 6th
April 2016.
Enforcement Notice to be
served.
E0058/
2016
Regulatory Services
Manager on 6th April
2016
Land off Flatts Lane,
Normanby
Served TPO on 6th
April 2016
Objection received. To go
to Regulatory Committee.
E0040/
2015
Regulatory Services
Manager on 17th
February 2016
Land at King Georges
Terrace, South Bank. Land
adversely affecting the
amenity of the
Neighbourhood.
Served S215 Notice
on 4th May 2016.
Compliance date 6th
August 2016.
E0072/
2016
Regulatory Services
Manager on 28th
April 2016
Land at Kilbridge Close, New
Marske - Untidy Site.
Served section 215
Notice on 28th April
2016.
Compliance date 28th June
2016.
Number of complaints received to
date in 2013 – 347
Closed Cases – 346
Open Cases – 1
Number of complaints received to
date in 2014 – 378
Closed Cases – 374
Open Cases - 4
Number of complaints received to
date in 2015 – 290
Closed Cases -277
Open Cases – 13
Number of complaints received to
date in 2016 – 105
Closed Cases - 77
Open Cases - 28
Clive Watts
Senior Enforcement Officer
Development Management
Page 74 of 78
Agenda Item 9
Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order (TPO 01 /2016)
Woodcock Wood Flatts Lane Normanby
1. Background
1.1 On the 6th April 2016, the Council made a temporary Tree Preservation Order
(TPO 01 /2016) covering a woodland at Woodcock wood, Flatts Lane, Normanby
(see attached plan). The order remains in force for a temporary period of six
months during which time consideration is given to making the order permanent.
Persons affected by the order have 28 days from the date of service in which to
make comments or objections.
1.2 The making of a Tree Preservation Order is delegated to officers (Delegated
Power no 166). Where the TPO is unopposed then this can be confirmed under
delegated powers (Delegated Power no 169). In this instance an objection has
been received and therefore the matter is brought to Committee for consideration.
2. Consultation Responses
2.1 One letter of objection for the making of the Tree Preservation Order permanent has
been received from Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners agents for the owners of the
land Theakston Estates (Investments) Limited. They have expressed concern
regarding the permanent protection of the tree. In particular they maintain that:
a) They note that the Order has been made to “ensure the safety of the trees”
however they object to the application on this principle.
b) They maintain that the current and future safety of the trees is not called into
question as a result of the sites on-going agricultural activity or the recent
proposals for residential development. Theakston Land intends to bring forward
residential development within the mature landscaped setting and as such the
trees will form an integral part of the scheme.
3. Planning Policy Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 2012
4. Development Plan Policies
CS 3
Spatial Strategy for Greater Eston
Page 75 of 78
5. Reasoned Argument
5.1 It is considered that the trees contribute to the amenity of the area and are visible
from a public place. They have a wider impact and significance to the area and
form a wildlife habitat and corridor for a variety of wildlife. The removal of the trees
would have a detrimental effect on the amenity and character of the area.
5.2 The concerns expressed by the owners have been considered by the Council’s
Arborist. He is of the opinion that the trees identified should be protected.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Tree Preservation Order 01/2016 is confirmed without
modification.
Page 76 of 78
AGENDA ITEM 10
Briefing Note
Current Section 106 Agreements
Recommendation of Audit Report
To:
Regulatory Committee
From: Assistant Director (Driving Growth)
Date:
2 June 2016
Ref:
AM / 106 /Reg
1.0
Purpose
1.1
To respond to a recommendation of the Tees Valley Audit and Assurance TVAAS)
report (April 2016) in respect of the reporting of progress on the completion of
Section 106 agreements.
2.0
Summary
2.1
The Development Management service was the subject of an audit by TVAAS in
March / April 2016 in respect of the management of the Section 106 agreements.
The final report concluded that there was a moderate control environment with
some weaknesses in management of the process which were required to be
addressed.
2.2
Of the 11 recommendations made, one related to the reporting of progress on such
agreements to management / members. It was recognised that the negotiation and
completion of such agreements was a matter primarily dealt with by officers but the
lack of information as to the process of such agreements could lead to the adverse
public perception of agreements. It was recommended that management introduce
regular reporting of section 106 agreements via a Briefing Note (standing item) to
the members of the Regulatory Committee and / or EMT (as part of the regular
major applications Briefing Note) advising on the progress of such agreements.
2.3
Whilst introducing a further reporting obligation on such agreements, it is
recognised that such a report can be prepared within current resources with little or
no impact on service provision.
3.0
Conclusions/recommendations
3.1
That the report is noted and that the Corporate Director of Resources includes with
each Regulatory Committee agenda details of the section 106 agreements which
are in the progress of being completed and at what stage the agreements are at.
4.0
Further information sources
Adrian Miller (Regulatory Services Manager)
Regeneration Directorate
Redcar and Cleveland House
Kirkleatham Street
Redcar and Cleveland Council TS10 1RT
adrian.miller@redcar-cleveland .gov.uk
01287 61(2454)
Page 77 of 78
Page 78 of 78