Agenda and minutes

The evacuation procedure was noted.

There were no declarations of interest.

The planning protocol was noted.

Consideration was given to planning application 24/0847/FUL Land North of Lidl, Yarm Road, Stockton-on-Tees.

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a drive-thru restaurant (Class E/ Sui Generis) with associated access, servicing, car parking, hard and soft landscaping at Yarm Road in Stockton.

The application was a main town centre use and accordingly a sequential assessment had been undertaken which demonstrated that there were no suitable or available sites in the town centre or on the edge of centre, which would suit the needs of the applicant and therefore the principle of development in this location was considered acceptable.

The application had been considered in full and 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.

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 it was considered that given the nature of the proposal and the business model, the proposed development satisfied the requirements of planning policy in that there were currently no sequential preferable site available and that there was no demonstrable evidence that the associated impacts would have any significant detrimental impacts on the vitality and viability of the Borough’s retail centres, in particular Stockton Town Centre. In addition, the proposal was also considered to have some social and economic benefits which weighed in its favour

In planning terms, the proposed development was considered to be acceptable in all other regards. The proposed development was therefore recommended for approval subject to those planning conditions set out within the main report.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that condition 2 and 16 had been amended since the original report.

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 Council Staff to achieve a suitable proposal.

- McDonalds had carried out a consultation with residents and had agreed to reduce the proposed operating hours from 24-hours to 06:00 until 24:00 hours Monday to Sunday.

- There had been no objections from the Councils Highways, Transport and Environment Service nor from National Highways.

- The noise assessment showed negligible impact.

- There would be significant benefits in terms of job creation during construction and in the restaurant once the build was complete.

- The development was proposed on a vacant brown field site.

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

- Residents received letters 3 days prior to the Planning Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/31/24

Consideration was given to planning application 24/0578/FUL 15 Swinburne Road, Eaglescliffe, Stockton-on-Tees.

The application was an end of terrace, two storey property on Swinburne Road located within Eaglescliffe conservation area.

The application had been revised and now sought planning permission for a small dormer extension to the rear and a skylight to the front.

6 objection comments were made to the original application which included 2no dormers, one to the front and one to the rear of the host dwelling. The majority of objection comments were regarding the impact on the Conservation Area, the impact on the character of the area, the precedent it may set for future developments and overlooking impacts.

The Historic Buildings Officer also made an objection to the original application with regards to the impact on the conservation area and the impact on the character of the street scene.

As above the scheme had been amended to address the concerns raised. There were no objections made to the revised scheme.

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 Skylights were present elsewhere in the street scene at no.’s  1, 2, 12, 12A and 16 Swinburne Road. The proposed dormer would be located on the roofscape it would be screened by the roof and therefore would not be visible in the street scene. Consequently, it was not considered that the proposals would be significantly out of character within the street scene or conservation area.

Separation distances complied with the council’s guidance and ensured satisfactory amenity for neighbouring occupiers. Additionally parking provision would meet with the council’s required standards.  

It was recommended that the application be approved with conditions for the reasons specified above.

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

- Clarity was sort regarding the positioning of the Velux window on the proposed application site due to the property being in a conservation area.

- There appeared to be conflicting information within the officers’ report where the Historic Buildings Officer had stated that the flat roof and grey cladding were not in keeping with surrounding properties and recommended a rear dormer be resubmitted, and then paragraph 21 of the report, ‘Impact on Heritage’ stated that the dormer to the rear of the property would not be highly visible on the street scene and therefore did not have an adverse impact on the overall character of the conservation area.

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

- The Planning Services Manager explained to the committee that typically Velux windows in a conservation area would be avoided however as there were already 4 or  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/32/24

The Appeals were noted.

The Appeals were noted.