Issue - meetings

The Chairman of the Planning Committee agreed to hear the officers report, public representations and member debate in relation to items 23/0916/FUL and 23/0899/LBC, as one, as all items related to the same development.

The Planning Officer outlined planning application 23/0916/FUL 111 High Street Yarm, Stockton-On-Tees, Erection of a first floor rear extension, and 23/0899/LBC 111 High Street, Yarm, Stockton-On-Tees Listed building consent for the erection of a first floor rear extension to include internal alterations for the creation of a doorway.

The application site was a commercial mid terraced property used as a dentist. It was a three storey building with a grade II listed status situated within the Yarm Conservation area along the western section of the High Street.

Previously planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear under applications 12/2565/LBC and 12/2564/COU.

The application sought to erect a first-floor rear extension to the existing dental practice and in order to meet the needs of the business and provide additional patient care. The extension would create a waiting area and single surgery room.

The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the main report.

Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the main report.

The planning policies and material planning considerations that were relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.

In terms of planning application 23/0916/FUL, the Planning Officers report concluded that the proposed expansion of the existing business was supported in national and local policy terms, whilst as detailed within the main report the impacts of the extension were also not considered to significantly affect the character of the area (including conservation area), amenity of neighbouring occupiers or highway safety.

In assessing the impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the concerns of the Historic Buildings Officer were noted and although a degree of harm was considered to occur, this was ‘less than significant’. In addition, the overall significance of the rear setting had already suffered from some harm as a result of the previous ground floor extension and the additional of the first-floor extension was considered to be minor and subservient.

In addition, the proposals in providing an existing dental practice the opportunity to grow and expand its services offered public benefit which was considered to weight in favour of the proposals. Thus, the identified ‘less than substantial harm’ on the heritage asset was outweighed.

In terms of planning application 23/0899/LBC, in assessing the impact on the significance of the heritage asset, it was ultimately a matter for the Local Planning Authority to consider the harm identified and weigh that against the benefits of the development.

The proposed extension would be located above a newly added ground floor extension and in terms of its architecture it would follow that of the existing extension. Whilst it is recognised that the extension would impact on a proportion of historic fabric of the building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60