It Is Considered That the Proposed Development Will Not Cause Significant Harm to the Amenity s1

REDCAR AND CLEVELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT)

COMMITTEE DATE: 26/03/2009

LIST: D

APPLICATION NUMBER: R/2009/0067/FF

Application For: INSTALL A NEW TIMBER PITCHED ROOF AND REPLACE 3 No. EXTERNAL TIMBER WALLS WITH BRICKWORK At: MARSKE SPORTS AND RECREATION ASSOCIATION, THE PAVILION, MOUNT PLEASANT AVENUE, MARSKE

PROPOSAL:

Permission is sought to replace an existing flat roof with a pitched roof, and replace three external timber walls with brickwork at the Marske Sports and Recreation pavilion, which is located centrally within a ‘sports type complex to the south west end of Mount Pleasant Avenue, Marske. There is a bowling green to the east of the site, a band hut and football ground to the south, car park to the west and tennis courts to the north.

This building was originally a pre-fabricated building to which a number of upgrades and repairs have been made over the years.

The application site falls within the Development Limits.

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.

Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework 2007:

CS20 – Promoting Good Design

DP1 – Development Limits

DP2 – Site Selection

DP3 – Sustainable Design OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS:

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

BACKGROUND

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council’s (RCBC) Health and Safety Section have been involved in this matter; a brief resume of their involvement is listed below:

 Complaint received September 2008, regarding the condition of the building particularly the leaking of water through the roof.  Premises assessed September 2008; structural survey and electrical inspection required.  Following receipt of structural and electrical reports, an immediate Prohibition Notice was served under the Health and safety at work etc Act 1974, by RCBC’s Environmental Health and Licensing Manager, in November 2008. This Notice prohibited use of the building until works carried out to the structure and the electrical system.  Temporary remedial works made to structure and electricity supply December 2008; Prohibition Notice withdrawn to allow Club House to re-open. Commitment given by Committee to progress new roof to make building watertight spring/summer 2009, then to redecorate and repair electrical supply.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

This application has been advertised by means of site notice and neighbour notification letters. The following responses have been received:

Neighbours:

Some 16 letters of objection have been received from residents within the locality and the Borough, from members of the Marske Sports and Recreation Association (MRSA), and from users/chairpersons of other facilities within this sports area (Tennis/Bowls/Football Clubs etc). These comments are précised below:

Material Planning Considerations

 The building is a disgrace outside and inside. Repairs on this building are always done to the bare minimum standards; does not feel this does the local community any favours.  Rather than ‘putting plasters on’ this temporary building, it should be demolished and rebuilt.  The new roof will not enhance the club as it is in such a state of disrepair.

Non-Material Considerations

 This application is not supported by the Committee of the MRSA; it was not discussed/approved at a Committee meeting and has been submitted without any mandate. The planning application should not therefore be considered by the Council.  It had been agreed nothing would be done until the matter was discussed at a Committee meeting.  This application has not been sanctioned by association members apart from the Chair/Treasurer/Secretary and is as such undemocratic.  Funding for the development has not been approved by (MRSA) members; therefore such development is against the wishes of the majority of association members and approval should not be granted.  Are funds in place to carry out this full repair?  Members/Committee members of the MRSA were not consulted properly on the suitability or otherwise of the plans prior to the application being submitted.  There is no mention of the Tennis Club using these facilities.

Parish Council:

Recommend that … “Defer decision pending confirmation of management committee agreement and landowner’s agreement.”

RCBC Health and Safety Section:

Have no objections to the above proposal.

State that the flat roof is approximately 15-20 years old and despite being patched over in this period is in poor condition and requires replacement. Give the information referred to in the ‘Background’ section above.

REASONED ARGUMENT:

Permission is sought to replace an existing flat roof with a pitched roof and replace three external timber walls with brickwork at the Marske Sports and Recreation Pavilion. The roof to the building is in a poor condition and following the serving of a prohibition notice by RCBC has been repaired on a temporary basis.

A number of objections have been made to the proposal on the basis that the entire building is in such a state of disrepair, that rather than repairing it, it should be demolished and rebuilt. Whilst these comments are noted, the planning application submitted is for a replacement roof and part replacement brick walls; as such it is not considered appropriate to compare the merits or otherwise of demolition versus repair, rather the scheme as submitted should be assessed on its own merits.

It is not considered that the replacing of the flat roof with a pitched roof and the rebuilding of part of the walls in brick would prove significantly detrimental to either the character or appearance of the building or area as a whole (indeed it is considered likely that the pitched roof would be more aesthetically pleasing than the current flat roof) and subject to a condition clarifying materials to be used, it is considered that this element of the proposal is acceptable in planning terms.

As regards the numerous objections/concerns received regarding alleged discrepancies/omissions in the internal MRSA process and whether or not the submission of the application was sanctioned by the MRSA; these are not material planning considerations and cannot therefore be given weight when assessing this application. The application appears to be valid in planning terms and as such the Local Authority is obliged to assess and determine it in the submitted form.

Furthermore, if the applicant’s do not own the land in question, as is indicated in the planning application, even if planning permission were to be granted, the land/building owners consent would be required prior to planning permission being implemented. Planning permission would not override legal/landownership rights.

To conclude, it is not considered the proposal would prove significantly detrimental to the character and appearance of the building or area as a whole, to neighbour amenity or to highways safety and subject to conditions clarifying materials to be used, it is recommended that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Taking into account the contents of the report the recommendation is to GRANT planning permission subject to the following 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) Details of the external materials to be used in the carrying out of this permission (including samples) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development and the development shall not be carried out except in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure the use of satisfactory materials.