Agenda and minutes

The evacuation procedure was noted.

There were no declarations of interest.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting which was held 5 June 2024 for approval and signature.

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

The Planning Protocol was noted.

Members were asked to consider, note, and endorse the contents of a report ‘Local enforcement plan – planning guidance’. Which had originally been presented and deferred to Planning Committee Members 10 April 2024

Members had requested training and briefing in relation to the Local Enforcement Plan at the Planning Committee meeting held 10 April 2024 which had been delivered, and as detailed within those discussions, Members were informed that the Council had a statutory duty to investigate breaches of planning control although the decision on whether to act was nevertheless discretionary.

Ensuring compliance with planning regulations was also considered to play an important role in safeguarding the policies of the Local Plan and achieving high standards of development across the Borough.

The NPPF (para 59) stated that effective enforcement was important to maintain public confidence and that local planning authorities should consider publishing a local enforcement plan “to manage enforcement proactively, in a way that was appropriate to their area”.

Additionally following last year’s scrutiny review of planning (development management) & adoption of open space, the agreed action plan detailed within the report sought to introduce a local enforcement plan. A draft “Local Enforcement Plan” had been developed and this had previously been shared with the Corporate Management Team who supported the intention to introduce and ‘adopt’ the local enforcement plan.

The local enforcement plan did not have any legal status or formal adoption process, instead it was intended to provide guidance and increased transparency on the authority’s approach to how breaches of planning control would be processed with potential benefits being to help manage customer expectations and improve the overall customer experience.

The main topics discussed were as follows:

- In addition and in order to introduce an element of consistency to the prioritisation of cases, a ‘triage’ system had also been developed allocating a ‘score’ (based on a series of inputs which related to the nature of the case) within the priority rating system (emergency, high and low) which allowed officers to ensure that the most sensitive and urgent cases were investigated as a high priority and were given the appropriate attention.

- The intention was for the Local Enforcement Plan to be introduced 1 November 2024.

- Historical cases would still be investigated; however, this would be outside of the new process.

- A seminar session was to be held for Planning Committee Members and further training on the process would be offered to all Council Members.

- Officers were confident that timescales around ‘triage’ date setting would be achieved in terms of categorising cases by priority.

- Brief discussion took place around how minor breaches would be tackled, for example, where planning consent had been granted but the applicant had breached that consent and had built beyond what had been permitted.

- It was suggested that a quarterly snapshot be brought back to Planning Committee to show what cases had come into the Planning Service and what had been completed. In addition, a 12-month review of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/26/24

Consideration was given to planning application 23/2102/Ful, Land Off Cygnet Drive, Bowesfield Lane, Stockton-on-Tees.

Planning permission was sought for the erection of 265 dwellings and associated infrastructure and landscaping on an allocated site off Cygnet Drive/ Kingfisher Way, Bowesfield, Stockton.  The scheme also included the provision of a car park to serve the nature reserve which would be accessed from Bowesfield Crescent

The proposed application consisted of 265 houses with 4 bungalows, 86 of which would be affordable, equating to 32.45% affordable provision.

The application had 39 letters of objection. In addition, an online petition objecting to the proposal was submitted with 523 signatures via change.org.  No fundamental objections had been raised by statutory consultees.

The principle of development was considered acceptable, and the application had been considered in full and therefore it was not considered that the development would result in any significant conflict with the policies of the Local Plan and there were no technical reasons why the proposed scheme was unacceptable in planning terms and would justify a refusal of the application. 

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 development formed part of an allocated site in the local plan. It was considered that there were material benefits arising from the proposed development and there were not any adverse impacts from the proposed development that would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole.

Other material considerations had been considered in detail and the development as proposed was acceptable in terms of visual impact and highway safety, it did not adversely impact on neighbouring properties, archaeology or the ecological habitat and flooding

For the reasons as detailed within the officers report it was recommended that the application be Approved with Conditions and subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement as detailed within the Heads of Terms.

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that there had been updates to Conditions 2 and 9 contained within the main report.

Since the writing of the report there were 6 additional letters submitted and the petition stood at 783 signatures. In addition, Thornaby Town Council had objected to the scheme.

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

- The Applicant had worked closely with the Council to develop the brown field site in accordance with the adopted Local Plan.

- The development would provide economic benefits.

- 86 high quality affordable homes would be provided surrounded by open space with access to the Tees Corridor.

- Keepmoat had a commitment to supporting local communities and businesses.

- The Applicant had a long-standing relationship with Stockton Riverside College.

- Members were respectfully asked to grant planning permission for the proposed development.  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/27/24