Agenda and minutes

The Evacuation Procedure was noted.

There were no declarations of interest.

Consideration was given to the draft minutes from the Planning Committee meetings which were held on 18 October and 8 November 2023 for approval and signature

RESOLVED that the minutes be approved and signed as a correct record by the Chair.

The Planning Protocol was noted.

Consideration was given to planning application 23/1899/FUL

1 Whitehouse Drive, Stockton-on-Tees TS19 0QE

The application site was a detached 4-bedroom two storey dwellinghouse within the defined settlement limits of Stockton-on-Tees.

The application was seeking planning permission for the change of use of 1 Whitehouse Drive from a four-bedroom dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a children’s home (Use Class C2). The site benefited from off street parking, and a rear private amenity space.

The proposed children’s home would provide accommodation for a maximum of 4 children between the ages of 7 and 17 years with 24-hour adult support, provided on a shift basis. Up to three members of staff would be present at the premises each day between 07:30am- 9:30pm. Two awake staff members would be present overnight.

As part of the change of use the existing garage would be converted to an office window replacing the garage door. A side window would be blocked up, internal alterations to rooms, and an extended driveway.

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.

The Planning Officers report concluded that the application be recommended for approval with conditions for the reasons as specified within the Officers report.

Objectors attended the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

. A local resident who lived in close proximity to the proposed development expressed that should the children residing at the home be young offenders then this would put themselves and their family at risk.

. Concerns around Anti-Social Behaviour was highlighted.

. It was felt that the drive at the proposed property could not accommodate 5 vehicles. In addition, 5 spaces would not be enough for staff and visitors therefore more spaces were needed otherwise cars would spill out onto Whitehouse Drive exacerbating current highways issues.

. Whitehouse Drive was a very narrow road.

. The home was in close proximity to a school, college and football club which already suffered with highways issues in terms of egress and exit at Whitehouse Drive.

. There were parking issues in the area due to regular activity at Stockton Football Club.

. People were parking on grass verges and there had also been damage to pavements in the surrounding area.

. Traffic congestion was particularly bad during school drop off and pick up and it was difficult for residents in the local area to get on and off their driveways .

. Questions were raised as to why residents had only received notification of the Planning Committee 2 days prior to the meeting.

. It was felt that the children in the home occupying the proposed downstairs bedroom would cause disturbance possibly late into the night to the neighbouring property where a  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/38/23

Consideration was given to planning application 23/1820/FUL Bay Tree House, Seamer Road, Hilton.

The application sought planning permission for the demolition of existing dwelling/garage and the creation of a replacement, a 1.5 storey detached dwelling.

The application site was a detached bungalow on Seamer Road in Hilton village. The surrounding properties on Seamer Road were a mix of 1940s/50s and 1960s/70s, single and two-storey properties of a range of different types and styles.

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.

The Planning Officers report concluded that the planning application be recommended for approval with Conditions for the reasons as specified within the Officers report.

Objectors attended the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

. The property was too large and too far forward in comparison to those close by as most of those were bungalows.

. The proposed development  would look out of place and spoil the thoroughfare.

. The plot could easily take a family bungalow.

. If approved, it would set a precedent for the main street through Hilton Village.

. The property would encroach on the existing frontage and there was enough land to be moved back and keep within the existing building line.

. Chair of the Hilton Village Parish Council indicated he was speaking on behalf of himself and the Parish Council representing 27 other residents that could not attend.

. This was an ancient Village, and there would be no issue if the house was less intrusive and part of the Village.

. There had been a previous application submitted which had been refused, however this new application was bigger and more intrusive.

. The fact there were 2 storey homes on Falcon Walk was irrelevant to this application.

The Applicant attended the meeting and was given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

. The property was purchased and had remained unchanged from 1970 and needed significant development.

. The plot was a generous size however had structural issues. Shale needed to be removed therefore the building needed to be demolished and rebuilt.

. Officers had provided guidance following the original application had been refused. The resubmitted application included building into the roof space and extending the building as advised by Officers.

. There would be no significant impact in terms of overshadowing to neighbouring properties.

. The application accorded with the Council’s planning polices and was in keeping with the surrounding area.

. No other regulatory authorities had submitted objections.

. The house will be our family home, much improved and be energy efficient.

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/39/23

Consideration was given to 23/1709/ADV Land Off St Martins Way, Kirklevington.

Retrospective advertisement consent was sought for signage at a Taylor Wimpey residential building site in Kirklevington.

Advertisement consent had already been approved for signage at the site, but the signage had not been erected in accordance with the approved plans and this application was to rectify that matter.

A number of objections had been received to the signage and the comments had been fully considered and addressed in the report.

Advertisement applications could only be considered with highway safety or public amenity in mind, and it was not considered that there were sufficient reasons to warrant refusal of the application and therefore the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions as detailed within the main report.

Members were presented with an update report which since the original report detailed additional comments which had been received from the Environmental Health Team as well as comments from a neighbour who was unable to attend the committee meeting and had asked for their comments to be provided to Members for consideration. Full details of the comments were detailed within the update report.

The comments from the Environmental Health Team and the Neighbour were noted, however the issues of noise had already been considered in full at paragraph 22 of the main report and did not change the Officers original recommendation.

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.

The Planning Officers report concluded that the application be recommended for approval with Conditions for the reasons as specified within the main report.

Members were given the opportunity to ask questions / make comments. These could be summarised as follows: -

. Residents sheer exacerbation was completely understood. Taylor Wimpey had broken conditions, and this was the final straw, which had come on top of a long list of problems.

. This was possibly the worst housing development site in the Kirklevington and Yarm area. The flags / flagpoles and signage were complete overkill, they should have just placed them where they were given permission for.

. This issue should have been tackled with enforcement, and the developer should have been made to move the signage / flagpoles to where they had permission for.

. If the main offending flagpole was moved this would elevate the issue for residents in terms of noise.

. The flagpoles had temporary consent and would be removed on or before 11 August 2026.

. The noise created from the flags was upsetting to residents, the developer should compromise and move the offending flagpole?

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows: -

. Officers informed the Committee that developers could  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/40/23

Consideration was given to planning application 22/0334/EIS Land At Summerville Farm, Harrowgate Lane, Stockton-on-Tees.

The application site was located on the western fringe of Stockton and formed part of the West Stockton Strategic Urban Extension (WSSUE) which totalled 2,150 new homes across the Local Plan period. The application site formed one of the larger parcels of land within the northern parcel of the Strategic Urban Extension which was situated to south of Letch Lane and north of Outwood Academy.

A hybrid planning permission was sought, with part of the proposals seeking a full planning approval for 385 dwellings with associated infrastructure and the second element seeking outline planning approval for 285 dwellings. The planning application was supported by an Environmental Statement (ES) and was considered under the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations.

The detailed part of the proposed development would provide a mix of two, three and four bedroomed properties over a mix of small terraces, semi-detached and detached dwellings with a mix of tenure types. The outline part of the application sought consent forming the south western proportion of the site, with only the means of access being considered at this stage. Access into the site would be via two new access points from Harrowgate Lane which would serve each development parcel.

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.

The Planning Officers report concluded that the application site formed part of the West Stockton Strategic Urban Extension which alongside housing delivery at Wynyard, the WSSUE formed a key housing site within the adopted Local Plan. The principle of housing on the site had already been accepted and established within the adopted Local Plan and therefore the proposed development was in accordance with those aims and requirements of the development plan. Delivery of housing on the site would also contribute to and help to maintain the Council’s delivery of 5 year housing land supply.

With regards to the detailed part of this planning application, the proposed appearance, scale and layout of the development was considered to be acceptable and would allow for the creation of a development which included an attractive environment and acceptable level of the amenity for future occupiers. Equally the development could be accommodated without any undue impact on the amenity of any adjacent neighbours and as detailed in the Officers report, there were no technical reasons why the proposals would be unacceptable.

As detailed within the main report, in view of the fact that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms (subject to the identified condition and the outcomes of any viability appraisal) the application was put before members to consider the agreement to the principle of the development with the outcomes of the viability of the appraisal being delegated  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/41/23

In terms of the appeal decision, APP/H0738/W/23/3321634 relating to the Stoneacre Motor Group, RMB Motors Autoparc, Low Lane, High Leven, Stockton on Tees, Members sought clarity as to whether there would be any enforcement applied to remove the fence. The fence was an eyesore and was still in situ even though the appeal was dismissed.  In addition, on exiting from Maltby to Low Lane in a vehicle there was also an advertising board obscuring vision. It was also asked whether the fence could remain in its current state should a future application be brought back to committee until that application was heard?

Officers informed Members that an enforcement notice was in discussion and currently being worked through, it was intended that action would be taken.

Regards questions raised relating to whether the current fence would remain should a future planning application be submitted, Officers explained that the fence may be set back which was being looked at.

The Appeals were noted.