Planning and Development Committee s1

Planning and Development Committee 17 October 2008

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Planning and Development Committee was held on 17 October 2008.

PRESENT: Councillor McPartland (Chair), Councillors Cox, Clark, Khan (as substitute for Councillor Brunton), Lowes, McIntyre, Purvis and B Thompson

OFFICIALS: M Chisholm, V Flynn, A Hughes, B Roberts and E Vickers.

**ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Elder, C Hobson, J Hobson and Williams

**DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Name of Councillor Type of Interest Item of Interest Councillor McPartland Personal M/FP/1389/08/P Councillor McPartland Personal M/FP/1443/08/P Councillor B Thompson Prejudicial M/FP/1392/08/P

**APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bloundele, Brunton and Whatley

**MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held 26 September 2008 were taken as read and approved as a true record.

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Prior to the commencement of the meeting proper, and at the request of the Chair, the Head of Development Control advised members of the committee what factors could be included and considered as material considerations, when a planning application was presented. There were only certain factors which could be included, such as impact, design, distances, etc, and there were other factors which could not be considered, such as property values, covenants, views, competition, artistic merit, issues of cost or use of public funding etc. Members were advised that each planning application should be considered on the basis of whether application was appropriate for the land on which it was to be positioned.

**PLANS

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

ORDERED that the following applications be determined as shown: -

M/FP/1459/08/P – Erection of 2 no. dormer bungalows to the rear of Burlam Road, Linthorpe for Mr F Da Silva.

The applicant and Ward Councillor were present, however, as a request had been received that a site visit be held, it was agreed that this application be deferred. Therefore neither party addressed the meeting.

Deferred pending a site visit.

M/RES/1465/08/P – Erection of 1.5 storey dwelling on land to the rear of Bisham Avenue, Linthorpe for Mr F Da Silva

1 Planning and Development Committee 17 October 2008

The applicant and Ward Councillor were present, however, as a request had been received that a site visit be held, it was agreed that this application be deferred. Therefore neither party addressed the meeting.

M/FP/1400/08/P – Erection of public art installation (Middlehaven – Temenos) on Middlesbrough Dock land spanning north-east corner, Phase I, Middlehaven for Tees Valley Regeneration Ltd.

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

Full details of the proposal were included in the report. Members were advised that this application related to the erection of a major piece of installation of public art which would stand at the north eastern corner of Middlesbrough Dock which forms Phase I of the current proposals with outline approvals for mixed use development in Middlehaven. The public art installation itself has been named “Temenos” and was intended at the first of 5 such major installations throughout the Tees Valley, which were collectively named the Tees Valley Giants. (The name Temenos is a Greek word and means an area of land cut off as a sanctuary or holy area). This major public art installation has been designed by a design team led by Amish Kapoor and Cecil Balmond.

Further details of the proposal were included in the report.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and responses had been received from Transport & Design Services, Community Protection, the Community Safety Advisor, Stockton Borough Council, Environment Agency, Natural England, CABE and Northern Gas Networks.

A detailed analysis of this application was also included in the report. This was broken down into sub headings namely:-

1. Regeneration. 2. Visual and townscape effects. 3. Other environmental affects and particular reference was made to the environmental statement that accompanied the planning application and which has been provided voluntarily by the applicants under the EIA Regulations 1999.

Members were advised that “Temenos”, the Teesside Giant to be erected at Middlehaven, represented an important and further step in the regeneration of the former dockside area between Middlesbrough Town Centre and the River Tees. Sponsored by Tees Valley Regeneration, this proposed major installation of public art would undoubtedly present a unique form and scale of such works of art in this area of emerging buildings and public realm. When seen against the backdrop of both the historic and modern landscape of icons at Middlehaven, the scale and form of “Temenos” would rather be absorbed into the surrounding townscape and would not have any undue adverse, visual affect. Moreover, this public artwork would have a significant potential to bolster the current regeneration schemes and progress and to contribute to the local economy as a potential tourist attraction in its own right.

Reasons for Recommendation

The proposed development was considered to be appropriate for both the application site itself and within the surrounding area in that the proposal was in accordance with National, Regional and Local Planning Policies, Statements and Guidance. The relevant Policies, Statements and Guidance were contained within the following documents;

 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) – Delivering Sustainable Development  The North East of England Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (2008)  Middlesbrough Local Development Framework – Core Strategy 2008  Middlesbrough Local Development Framework – Regeneration DPD (Submission Draft 2008)  Middlesbrough Local Plan (1999) – Saved Policies E5, LT7 and TC9.

In particular, the proposal met National Planning Policies Statements and Guidance and the Local Development Framework Policies regarding the efficient use of land, design, appropriate scales of development, sustainable development and accessibility whilst proposing a development that would be in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area. The analysis that the potential environmental affects of the proposal provided by the submitted environmental statement had also been considered.

Accordingly, the Local Planning Authority considered that there were no material planning considerations that would override the general assumption that the development be approved unless other material factors determine otherwise. On this basis the recommendations to approve conditionally was as set out for those reasons. The applicant was present and elected to address the committee.

Approved on conditions that; (i) the development shall only be carried out using finishing materials of which samples have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development; (ii) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours, means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, hard surfacing materials, minor artefacts and structures (e.g.; furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc.), proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g.; drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.), retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant; (iii) Before development commences, a plan showing the location of temporary car parking for use during construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented upon commencement of the development. Thereafter, such car parking to be removed on completion of works. (iv) If, during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at the site, then no further development, (unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted and obtained written approval for an amendment to the remediation strategy, detailing how this unsuspected contamination can be dealt with. (Reasons as detailed in the report).

**DECLARATION OF INTEREST – Councillor McPartland declared a Personal Interest in the following item on the grounds that it was close to his place of residence. Councillor McPartland took no part in the discussion and the Vice Chair, Councillor Clark, chaired the meeting for this item.

M/FP/1443/08/P – Erection of 1 no. detached dormer bungalow on land adjacent to 14 Shoreswood Walk, Brookfield for Mr S Morgan.

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

Members were advised that the subject of the application was for the demolishing of the existing double garage and erection of a detached two-bedroom dormer bungalow with integral garage. The bungalow was a gable ended design with dormer windows to the front and rear and the front elevation has a 0.9m gable fronted projection, which intersects the slope of the main roof.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and objections were received from the occupiers of No’s 15 Shoreswood Walk and No’s 9 and 12 Thinford Gardens. A 39-signature petition signed by local residents opposing the proposal had also been submitted. These objections could be summarised as follows:-

(a) The proposal was out of keeping with the surrounding area. (b) There was insufficient garden space. (c) Over provision of bungalows in the area.

(d) Traffic congestion in the turning head at Thinford Gardens. (e) Emergency vehicles would be unable to access Shoreswood Walk. (f) Disruption during construction.

A response to these objections was included in the report. Kader Community Council had also considered the application at its meeting on 1 September 2008 and the proposal was unanimously opposed.

Comments received from Environmental Protection, Transportation, Streetscene, Northumbrian Water and Northern Gas Networks were also included in the report.

A detailed analysis of the application, with particular reference to Policies DC1 and CS5 of the Middlesbrough Development Plan was also included in the report.

Reasons for Recommendation:

This application was satisfactory in that the design of the proposed dormer bungalow accorded with the principles of National Planning Policy (PPS1) and Local Policy requirements (CS1, EC1 and CS5 of the Councils Development Plans).

In particular the dormer bungalow was designed so that it’s appearance was complimentary to the surrounding dwellings so that it would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of any adjoining or nearby residents. The dormer bungalow would not prejudice the appearance of the area and did not significantly affect any landscaping, nor prevent adequate and safe access to the dwelling.

The application was therefore considered to be an acceptable form of development, fully in accordance with the relevant policy guidance and there were no material considerations that would indicate that the development should be refused. The applicant was present and elected to address the committee. Objectors were also present and their representative addressed the meeting.

Approved on condition that: - (i) the development shall only be carried out using finishing materials of which samples have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development; (ii) the development hereby approved shall be built in accordance with secure by design principles, the details of which shall be submitted as a scheme and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the agreed scheme before occupation commences; (iii) a detailed scheme for surface water drainage, incorporating both sustainable drainage principles and guidance provided by the Environment Agency and measures to prevent water from flowing onto the adjacent highways shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter to be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority; (iv) A plan showing the location of temporary car parking for use during construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented upon commencement of the development. Thereafter, such car parking to be removed on completion of works; (v) a plan indicating an amended layout of the parking layout shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with a timetable to be agreed by the Local Authority (Reasons as detailed in the report).

CHURCH OF ST PETER AND ST PAUL, HEMLINGTON ROAD, STAINTON – NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO CARRY OUT TREE WORK/REMOVE PROTECTED TREES

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Programme advised Members that this application had been the subject of a site visit, which had been held prior to the meeting.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Programme submitted a report the purpose of which was inform Members of a notification of intent to carry out tree works at the Churchyard of St Peter and St Paul Church, Stainton. This included the removal of Indian Cedar that was causing damage to the retaining between the churchyard and the adjacent Stainton House.

Members were advised that there were no final implications arising from this request unless a decision was taken to declare a provisional Tree Preservation Order in respect of the Indian Cedar or of any other trees proposed to the removed, which would make the Council liable for any damage being caused by the trees to the property at Stainton House.

Members were also advised that the Churchyard of St Peter and St Paul’s Church in Stainton Village contained a sizeable number of trees. These were protected through their location within Stainton and Thornton Conservation area but were not subject to a separate Tree Preservation Order. Trees within the adjacent Stainton House were protected by means of their inclusion within the Tree Preservation Order No. 79, 2000.

The Vicar of the Church had notified the Council of his intent to carry out tree works in the Churchyard. Anyone wishing to carry out works to a tree in a conservation area which is not already protected by the TPO must give at least six weeks notice to the Local Planning Authority. Trees have legal protection equivalent to a TPO for that period, and the Council may consider it appropriate to make an Order during that time.

In this instance the applicant notified the Council of his intention to carry out the tree works on 10 September 2008. If it was decided to declare a provisional TPO on any of the trees therefore this should be done before 22 October 2008.

Whilst the majority of the works proposed are largely concerned with the long term management of the trees in the Churchyard, the Indian Cedar tree located adjacent to the retaining wall which separates the Churchyard from Stainton House is a significant tree and of considerable amenity value in the conservation area. However this tree has been identified as causing damage to the retaining wall between the Churchyard and Stainton House.

Full details of the proposed works were outlined in the report along with the recommendations made by the Middlesbrough Council’s Arboricultural Advisor. This covered seven separate trees located in the vicinity.

The Arborist concluded that the request for works by the Reverend Ford indicated the desire to manage the trees within the Churchyard whilst addressing the concerns of Stainton House and the potential for Health and Safety issues to arise should be wall fall. Therefore the Arborist considered the requested works to be appropriate management.

Members were also advised that the majority of new planting suggestions the Reverend Ford had indicated Rowan and Irish Yew, the latter being a typical Churchyard constituent. Further observations from the Council’s Arborist and the Council’s Conservation Officer were included in the report.

In conclusion it was not considered that it would be appropriate for the Council to declare a Tree Preservation Order in respect of this Indian Cedar and it was recommended that approval be given to the removal of the tree and do the tree works proposed, subject to appropriate replacement trees being provided in accordance with a programme to be agreed with the Church authorities.

Councillor Williams was present, as Ward Councillor, and elected to address the committee.

ORDERED that approval be given to a programme of tree works at the Churchyard of St Peter and St Paul’s Church, Hemlington Road, Stainton, including the removal of an Indian Cedar, subject to the provision of replacement trees where appropriate.

**DECLARATION OF INTEREST – Councillor McPartland declared a Personal Interest in the following item on the grounds that it was close to the residence of one of his relatives. Councillor McPartland took no part in the discussion and the Vice Chair, Councillor Clark, chaired the meeting for this item.

M/FP/1389/08/P – Two storey extension to front, single storey extension to front at 15A Gunnergate Lane, Marton in Cleveland for Mr J Singh.

Members were reminded that this application was a re-submission following the refusal by Members of the previous application after having carried out a site visit. This application was reference M/FP/0752/08/P. This application sought to address the reason for refusal and planning permission was sought to demolish the garage and family room and erect 2 no. pitched roof extensions to the frontage.

Full details of the dimensions of these extensions were included in the report.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and objections were received from the Ward Councillors, Councillors C and J Hobson, who objected that the new application did not differ from the previous plan to the side of no. 17 Gunnergate Lane. Objections were also received from the occupier of no. 17 Gunnergate Lane on the grounds that this did not resolve the issue of light restriction to the downstairs hallway and the upstairs 4th bedroom, that it would result in insufficient natural light to these areas, that plants would be disrupted when the garage wall was removed and the applicant would require access from their side of the wall when the garage wall does come down, which would cause disruption.

Transportation had no objections subject to a planning condition to address surface water drainage.

A detailed analysis of the application was also included in the report. Particular reference was made to Policies DC1 (General Development) and Policy CS5 (Design) of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework.

The application was acceptable in that it was in accordance with National and Local Policy Guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 1 and the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies DC1 and CS5.

The proposed extension was of a scale, design and appearance which was complimentary to the existing dwelling house and would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of any adjoining or nearby residents. The extension would not prejudice the appearance of the area and did not significantly affect any landscaping, nor prevent adequate and safe access to the building.

The development is considered acceptable in terms of highway considerations. The application is therefore considered to be an acceptable form of development in accordance with National and Local Policy and Guidance and there were no material considerations which would indicate that the development should be refused.

The applicant and his agent were present and the agent elected to address the committee. Objectors were present and Councillor J Hobson addressed the committee of their behalf. Councillor C Hobson also addressed the committee, opposing this application, as Ward Councillor.

Approved on condition that: (i) the development shall only be carried out using finishing materials of which samples have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development; (ii) a scheme for surface water drainage, incorporating both sustainable drainage systems, principles and guidance provided by the Environmental Agency and measures to prevent water from flowing onto the adjacent highways, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter to be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. (Reasons as detailed in the report).

M/FP/1460/08/P – Extension and alterations including additional second floor, 3 storey extension to rear and extension to existing car park at Nunthorpe Oaks, 114 Guisborough Road for Nunthorpe for Codesurge Ltd.

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

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and comments received from the occupiers of no’s 1 and 3 Box Drive, no. 1 and 3 Railway Cottages and no. 114A Guisborough Road, the full details of which were included in the report.

Comments received from Transportation, Streetscene, Social Services, Community Safety Advisor, Environment Agency, and Northumbrian Water, were included in the report. Nunthorpe Community Council objected to the proposal on the grounds of visual impact on the surrounding area, inappropriate scale of the building, traffic, parking, affect on the amenities of neighbours, it will set a precedent, drainage and flooding, and that Nunthorpe was a residential area. Nunthorpe Parish Council objected as this was an intrusion on the visual amenities of Railway Cottages, Box Drive and 114A Guisborough Road, the full details of which were included in paragraph 32 of the report.

A full and detailed analysis of the application was also included in the report. Full reference was made to policies CS5, BC1 and CS4 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

The application was acceptable in that it was in accordance with the National and Local Policy Guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 1 and Planning Policy Statement 3 and the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Policies CS4, CS5 and DC1.

The proposed development was of a scale, layout, design and appearance appropriate to its context and would not materially detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality and surroundings or the amenities of adjacent occupiers. The development would integrate within the existing urban form and contribute to the overall quality and character of the area.

The development was considered acceptable in terms of highway considerations.

The application was therefore considered to be an acceptable form of development in accordance with National and Local Policy and Guidance and there were no material considerations which would indicate that the development should be refused.

The applicant was present and elected to address the committee.

Approved on condition that (i) the development shall only be carried out using finishing materials of which samples have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development (ii) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours, means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, hard surfacing materials, minor artefacts and structures (e.g.; furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc.), proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g.; drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.), retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant (iii) Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers, densities where appropriate; implementation programme (iv) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority (v) if within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, that tree or any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

(vi) in this condition, retained tree means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with particulars, approved Plan Drawing No. 1269/5A and paragraphs (a) and (b) below (a) no retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998:1989 (with subsequent amendments) (British Standard recommendation for tree work). (b) if any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies during the period of construction, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Similarly, if a retained tree dies or needs to be removed within five years of completion, and this is found to have been the result of damage sustained during development, this replanting condition will remain in force (c) the erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are built on the site for the purpose of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area of fence in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The retained tree shall be protected fully in accordance with British Standard 5837: 1991 (Guide For Trees In Relation To Construction). The fencing must not be dismantled at any time without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority; (vii) work on the proposed development shall not commence until the scheme for the protection of all existing trees on the site during construction work has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter construction works shall not proceed with agreement of the Council’s Urban Woodlands Officer (viii) prior to work commencing on the new car parking area, a timescale shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which enabled the existing landscaping to be assessed and those elements of the landscaping which were to be retained, to be identified and confirmed. (Reasons as detailed in the report).

**DECLARATION OF INTEREST – Councillor B Thompson declared a Prejudicial Interest in the following item on the grounds that she lived in close proximity to the application site. Councillor B Thompson exercised her right to speak and addressed the committee prior to leaving the meeting.

M/FP/1392/08/P – Conversion to form 4 no. 2 bedroomed apartments including single storey extension to rear and car parking at 200 Guisborough Road, Nunthorpe for Mr J King.

Full details of the proposal were included in the report.

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

Members were reminded that planning permission was recently granted for 3 no. detached dwellings in the original curtilage area of this property and this application related to the existing house and reduced curtilage area. Consent was sought for the conversion of the existing property into 4 no. apartments, 2 on the ground floor and 2 on the first floor. The conversion would take place largely within the physical and structural constraints of the existing building. Full details of the principle alterations to the main building were included in the report.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and comments and objections received are set out in Appendix I of the report. These were received from the residents at 167, 200A and 198 Guisborough Road and No. 5 Grey Towers Drive. Comments received from Transportation were also included in the report, and the advice from the Traffic Engineer was that the application be refused on highway grounds due to the fact that the visibility of the existing access was inadequate and the increased use of it, together with the generation of additional conflicting

8 Planning and Development Committee 17 October 2008 traffic movements resulting from this proposed development, would be prejudicial to road safety. There were no objections from the other major consultees. Nunthorpe Parish Council had been consulted and also objected and a list of their objections is included in paragraph 40 of the report. Nunthorpe Community Council also objected in that the character of 200 Guisborough Road should be retained and they had serious concerns about this proposal, the details of which were also included in the report.

A detailed analysis of this application was also included and particular reference was made to Policies CS9, CS5, DC1, CS4 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework.

The application was considered unacceptable in that it was contrary to and conflicted with National and Local Policy Guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement I and Planning Policy Statement III and the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework Core Strategies CS1, CS4, CS5, CS9 and DC1.

The proposed development was inappropriate to its context and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality and surroundings and the amenities of adjacent occupiers. The development would not integrate within the existing urban form or contribute to the overall quality and character of the area.

The development was considered unacceptable in terms of highway considerations.

Approval of the development would create a precedent which would make similar proposals difficult to resist and which could have the potential to change the character of the area.

The application was therefore considered to be an unacceptable form of development contrary to National and Local Policy Guidance and there were no material considerations which would indicate the development should be approved.

The applicant and agent were present and the agent elected to address the committee.

Refused on the grounds that: - (i) the proposal was contrary to and conflicted with Policy CS1, CS4, CS5, CS9 and DC1 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework Core Strategy; (ii) the proposal if approved will be detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by adjacent and nearby residents; (iii) the proposed development would be contrary to and conflict with Policy CS9 which sought to consolidate the housing market success in the area through (Interalia) the protection of the high environment quality of the area, securing high quality and density of development appropriate to the area and generally restricting the supply of apartments, in order to protect the supply of this type of housing which is under represented in Middlesbrough. (iv) Visibility of the existing access is inadequate and the increased use of it, together with the generation of additional conflicting traffic movements resulting from this proposed development, would be prejudicial to road safety; (v) the proposal would, if approved, create an undesirable precedent which would make similar proposals difficult to resist to the detriment of the amenity and character of the area.

M/FP/1510/08.P – Erection of 2 No self-contained flats on land to the rear of 43-45 Gresham Road for Mr Anwar Bashir.

The applicant’s agent and an objector were present, however, as a request had been received that a site visit be held, it was agreed that this application be deferred. Therefore neither party addressed the meeting.

M/FP/1432/08/P – Dormer window to side at 19 Reeth Road, Linthorpe for Mr & Mrs Eliya.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and no comments were received from the neighbours, however, comments received from Transportation and the Conservation Officer were included in the report.

A detailed analysis of the application was also included in the report and particular reference was made to Policies DC1 and CS5 of the Local Development Framework. Members were advised that within Linthorpe Conservation Area, there was an expectation of high standards of design and appearance and a protection of the character of the area. This application was for the extension of the roof over the existing hip and therefore would create an extensive roof form in comparison to the existing roof. This would also relate in a negative way to the appearance of the existing pair of semi-detached properties. The semi-detached properties benefit from a symmetrical appearance and were part of a long run of typical semi-detached houses of the same style. The dormer would therefore constitute and inappropriate visual intrusion in this regular street scene and would therefore be out of place in this part of the Conservation Area. An alternative form of dormer would negate these problems, as it could be made smaller, lowered below the ridge height and made a secondary feature in the design of the roof. The main principle in design of dormers is to ensure that it is subservient to the main roof, which would make it much less intrusive, and therefore be consistent with other dormers in the area. The overall planning view was that the dormer would erode the character of the area and was therefore in conflict with the Council’s Policy.

The applicant’s agent was present and elected to address the committee. He advised the committee that a revised plan had been produced to meet the requirements of the planning officers. With the agreement of the Chair, Members were permitted to consider this revised plan when reaching their decision.

Approved on condition that a revised scheme for the dormer window at side, showing the dormer inset within the hipped roof plane and lowered ridge line shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such scheme as may be approved shall only be implemented. (Reason: In the interests of a satisfactory form of development).

M/FP/1324/08/P – Two storey extension to side, single storey extension to front, single storey extension to rear at 44 Mandale Road, Acklam for Mr Elahi.

Full details of the proposal were included in the report. Members were advised that significant parts of the proposed development (two-storey extension to side and single storey extension to front) were approved by planning application M/FP/1919/07/P. The current application included these parts but also included an amendment to the approved single storey extension to the rear.

Neighbourhood consultations had taken place and one objection received from the adjacent occupiers of 42 Mandale Road who objected on the grounds that the development, by virtue of its 5 metre length along the party boundary would have a tunnelling affect on their living room.

A detailed analysis of the application, with particular reference to Policies DC1 and CS5 of the Local Development Framework, was also included in the report.

Refused on the grounds that the proposed single storey extension to the rear, by reason of its size, design and location, was considered inappropriate and would be to the detriment of the general amenities of the neighbouring occupiers and therefore be in conflict of the Local Development Plan, Policies DC1 and CS5.

M/GRG/1489/08/P – New 2.4 metre high security fencing at Sunnyside Primary School, Manor Farm Way, Coulby Newham for Sunnyside Primary School.

Details of the plan status and planning history were outlined in the report, as was a detailed analysis of the application.

The application was satisfactory in that design of the fencing accorded with the principle of National Planning Policy (PPS1) and Local Policy requirements (Policies CS5 and DC1 of the Council’s Local Development Framework).

In particular the proposed fencing was designed so that its appearance would not be detrimental to the existing school and so that it would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of any adjoining or nearby occupier.

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

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

ORDERED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992 the application be approved.

124-126 LINTHORPE ROAD – BANANA LEAF RESTAURANT – UNAUTHORISED USE OF PREMISES AS A3 UNIT

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Programme presented a report the purpose of which was to advise Members of the unauthorised use of the property as an A3 restaurant following the failure to adhere to the planning conditions imposed on the planning consent approved in 2001.

Members were advised that the property was located on the eastern side of the Linthorpe Road on the corner of Baker Street. On 9 April 2001 the Council received an application for change of use of the building, a school building to a pub/restaurant/café and on 25 June 2001 the Planning and Development Committee conditionally approved this application.

Since this event, the change in use has been carried out on the premises was now operating under its A3 use as per the application. However the Council has received numerous complaints related to the rubbish associated with the property since its commencement. Condition No. 6 attached to the permission requested that details of refuse storage facility should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, before the use commences. This condition has never been discharged.

The business had been contacted on numerous occasions since the original consent in an attempt to obtain such information to allow for the conditions to be discharged and recently requested to submit a planning application to rectify the breach of Planning Control.

Although in previous correspondence the owners have described their new system in writing, the Council has rejected this system as inappropriate due to the use of an adopted highway for the storage of the refuse.

Members should also be aware that none of the conditions imposed that related to the old school hall had been complied with. A copy of those conditions were attached as Appendix 1 of the report and the relevant conditions were Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Members should note that it was not the Council’s wish for the business to cease but it was the Council’s duty to safeguard amenity by ensuring that the development was carried out or continued within acceptable limits, having regard to local circumstances and the relevant planning policies. The development was only considered to be an acceptable form of development by the imposition of these conditions to the permission; the failure of the business to comply with these conditions has led to the setting of a conditions precedents which has rendered the original permission invalid and therefore the current use unlawful.

In order to rectify this unlawful use, it had been requested that a new planning application be submitted to regularise the use along with the necessary information to meet the previous conditions that were not discharged.

The Council made several recent attempts to obtain an application form and the associated information, however the management of the business have expressed that they do not intend to carry out these requested actions. By their refusal to apply for the necessary permission for the use of the property the Committee were requested to grant their approval for the necessary action to rectify this situation.

ORDERED as follows:

(i) that Members noted the contents of this report and (ii) that Members authorised the Council’s solicitors to serve an appropriate notice on the property seeking for compliance with the requirements of a condition, in order to rectify the issue.

PLANNING APPEALS

The Director of Legal and Democratic Services presented a report to advise Members of the findings of the Inspectorate appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions with regard to the following appeals: -

Site at 49A Kings Road, North Ormesby - (M/FP/2489/07/P) – Appeal upheld.

A detail of the appeal decision from the Planning Inspectorate was attached to the report, for Members’ information.

ORDERED that the report and its contents be noted. NOTED

DELEGATED AUTHORITY - PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Programme submitted details of planning applications which had been approved to date in accordance with the delegated authority granted to him at Minute 187 (29 September 1992).