Agenda and draft minutes

The evacuation procedure was noted.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes were approved and signed as a correct record by the Chair.

The planning protocol was noted.

Consideration was given to planning application 25/1330/OUT Land East Of Holdenfields Farm, Green Lane, Yarm.

Planning permission was sought for Outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for up to 600 dwellings.

The application site was outwith the development limits, however the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of housing and therefore the benefits of the scheme had been weighed against the harm as detailed in the report.

The development had received a significant number of objections which had been considered in full and there were no sustainable planning reasons to refuse the development.

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 In view of the considerations set out within the main report, the application be recommended for approval with conditions as detailed within the officers report.

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

- Concerns were raised relating to the impact on highways and capacity overload on the local traffic network. Should this application be approved, there would be over an additional 1000 vehicles exacerbating the situation further.

- There were 2 roundabouts and 4 junctions on Green Lane with reports of up to 28 vehicles frequently backed up to the junction of Kirk Road.

- Would Kirk Road junction have traffic lights should the proposal go ahead?

- Questions were raised relating to when the last traffic report had been undertaken as it was believed to have been in 2016.

-  Where was the road safety audit within the transport assessment?

-  Where would the financial contributions for education and NHS be spent?

- Due to the lack of a 5-year housing supply developers were able to submit applications outside the limits of development.

- The councils 5-year housing supply estimates were called into question as there were as many as 2300 houses (2.8 years) excluded from the 5-year housing supply.

- The application should be refused on the grounds of adverse impact on the area outweighing the benefits.

- Accumulative traffic impact must be assessed in terms of historic buildings and landscape with associated noise and air pollution impacting on the ambient setting of Yarm High Street.

- Yarm High Street was a conservation area and the local plan protected it.

- Reference was made to a previous application 19/0345/OUT at Handley Cross, Leven Bank, Yarm  for the erection of up to 7 dwelling’s and which was refused by the Planning Committee and lost at appeal.  The inspectorate concluded that the proposal would appear as an incongruous form of suburban development in an important countryside gap. The site at Handley Cross was in close proximity to this application site.  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/61/25

Consideration was given to planning application 25/1001/FUL Kirklevington Hall, Thirsk Road, Kirklevington.

Planning permission was sought for Hybrid planning application comprising of the following;

1)Full application for refurbishment works and extensions to the hotel and Victorian stables and development of a new covered walkway from the hotel to the Victorian stable building; event pavilion; spa; demolition of the existing staff accommodation in the walled garden to be replaced by eight self-contained lodges and potting shed offices; car parking and associated works and

2) Outline planning permission for residential development comprising self-build residential plots, woodland lodges, and associated infrastructure.

The application site was outwith the development limits and within the boundaries of a non designated asset, however the benefits of the scheme had been weighed against the harm as detailed in the report.

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 in view of the considerations set out within the report, it was recognised that there was conflict with some policies of the current Local Plan and harm would arise from the proposed housing to the landscape character of setting of the non-designed heritage asset.

However, the refurbishment and reopening of Kirklevington Hall as a hotel offer, provided social and economic benefits which would support the local economy, tourism and wider tourism offer across the Tees Valley. These associated benefits were considered to outweigh the harm with regards to its overall setting, and the terms of the section 106 agreement would look to control the phasing and delivery of the housing.

In addition, there remained potential for further growth and improvement in the hotel offer through the works associated with phase 2, though these aspects were not attributed any weight in favour of the proposals at this stage.

The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions as detailed within the report.

Members were presented with an update report which since the original report to planning committee Natural England had confirmed they had no objections to the proposals subject to appropriate mitigation being secured. This mitigation was to be secured via a legal agreement as detailed in the Heads of terms of the original report.

A further comment had also been received from a neighbouring occupier, which was detailed in the update report and generally related to the potential use as a wedding venue and the impacts on any associated marquee with regards to noise.

For transparency, clarification on the matters raised were detailed within the update report, and no fundamental new issues were raised therefore the recommendation remained as outlined in the original committee report.

With the agreement from the Chair a member of the public submitted pictures for the Committee to consider relating to an opportunity  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/62/25

Consideration was given to 25/0865/FUL 2 The Willows, Stockton-on-Tees, TS19 8BD

The application site related to a detached residential dormer bungalow located within the limits to development and within Stockton-on-Tees.

Planning permission was sought to increase the roof height of an existing dormer bungalow to 1.5 storey, erection of a single storey wrap around extension to the side/rear, erection of single storey extension to the front, single storey extension to the side and 1.8m high boundary treatment.

A total of 7no objection comments had been received from 3no households.

No objections have been raised by statutory consultees.

The application site related to a detached residential dwelling located within the limits to development.

The design and scale of the extensions were assessed against Local Plan policies and the NPPF, concluding that the revised scheme was proportionate to the plot size and would be largely coherent with surrounding development.

Amenity concerns such as overlooking, privacy, and overbearing effects were mitigated through design changes, obscure glazing, and boundary treatments, while tree protection measures were to be secured by condition. Parking provision met adopted standards, and no significant highway safety issues were identified.

Overall, the development was considered acceptable in terms of character, amenity and highway safety considerations.

In accordance with the Council’s scheme of delegation, the application was to be determined by Planning Committee as the application involved development on land which an interest was held by a Council Member (or their spouse/partner) or by any member of the Council staff (or their spouse/partner) and an objection representation had been received to the planning 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 in view of the assessment contained with the report, it was considered that the proposed development would not result in any significant conflict with the policies contained within the Stockon on Tees Local Plan or the relevant chapters of the NPPF and there were no technical reasons why the proposed scheme would be deemed unacceptable.

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

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

- The increase of the building which had been proposed was significant and did not appear to be 1.5 storeys as reported but looked like 2 storeys at 6.8 metres.

- The upper floors overlooked neighbouring properties and would be able to look into neighbours children’s bedrooms.

- Suggestions were made that the proposed roof be changed from a flat roof to a low pitched roof to minimise overlooking and using the balcony as  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/63/25

The appeals were noted.