Agenda and minutes

The evacuation procedure was noted.

There were no declarations of interest.

The planning protocol was noted.

Hybrid planning application comprising; 1. Full application for access and infrastructure works including provision of part of internal estate road and earthworks associated with re-profiling of existing site levels for creation of development plateaus, drainage works, utilities infrastructure and temporary top soil storage.  2, Outline application with all matters reserved other than access for erection of employment buildings (Use Class E(g)(ii & iii), B2/B8 including ancillary offices Use Class E(g)(i)) and service yard areas, ancillary railway sidings and associated works.

Consideration was given to planning application 25/0672/FUL Land East Of Durham Lane, Eaglescliffe, Stockton On Tees.

This application was a Hybrid planning application which would secure the access and infrastructure works to unlock the site for development. The Full application included the provision of part of an internal estate road and earthworks associated with re-profiling of existing site levels to create the development plateaus along with the associated drainage works, utilities infrastructure and temporary top soil storage.

Once the works were undertaken the site would be marketed for future Developers to come forward and this was the outline aspect for the erection of employment buildings (Use Class E(g)(ii & iii), B2/B8 including ancillary offices Use Class E(g)(i)) and service yard areas, ancillary railway sidings and associated works.

The application site was allocated in the local plan for B2/B8 development and therefore the proposal fully accorded with planning policy. There had been a number of objections which had been considered in full and there were no planning policy reasons to refuse 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 the application be recommended for approval with conditions for the reasons as detailed within the officers report.

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

- This was an outline hybrid planning application which did not include individual buildings.

- The Council was contributing £3million of Indigenous Growth funding to deliver the infrastructure

- The application site was estimated to provide 72000sqm of space with the potential for 1000 employment opportunities.

- Comments which had been submitted by residents were not relevant to this outline planning application, however, should be saved for the future reserved matters application.

- All relevant material planning conditions had been addressed as detailed within the officers report.

- The officers recommendations were supported by the applicant and therefore approval was requested with the conditions as detailed within the report.

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

- Concerns were raised around the lack of consultation with residents within the wider area particularly on the eastern side of the application site as well as a lack of engagement with the vulnerable and elderly.

- It was requested that additional noise impact assessments should be carried out.

- There had been insufficient environmental air quality assessments undertaken and further tests were required.

- There had already been several trees decimated on the other side of the road as well as the removal of trees by Network Rail at the side of the recently erected bridge at Eaglescliffe railway  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/27/25

Outline Planning Application (with all matters reserved except access) comprising a convenience foodstore and a parade of 4no convenience facilities (Use Class E) and associated outdoor terrace area.  Erection of retirement living apartments (use class C3) or residential care accommodation (use class C2) of approx. 60 bed spaces. Erection of 4no self build residential plots (Use Class C3). Highway access to/from the A1104 Low Lane via Welwyn Road and Melandra Road connecting to northeast boundary, with associated landscaping, open space and associated works.

Prior to Committee debate the Principal Planning Officer highlighted to Members of the Planning Committee that additional information had been requested from Natural England.

It was explained that to achieve nutrient neutrality the applicant had proposed the purchasing of nutrient credits from a registered third-party credit provider at a site within the Tees Valley catchment area, which had resulted in Natural England requesting additional information before the appropriate assessment could be fully signed off. 

As the principle had already been accepted by Natural England it was suggested that Members could consider the application and delegate the final decision to the Planning Services Manager once the appropriate assessment had been fully signed off, or alternatively Members could propose to defer the application until the assessment had been undertaken. The applicant had expressed they would have no issue should a deferral be the preferred approach.

A motion was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred.

A vote took place and the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that application 24/0977/OUT  Little Maltby Farm, Low Lane, High Leven be deferred for the reasons as stated above.

Change of use from residential (C3) to mixed use Commercial and Residential to allow for home business

Consideration was given to planning application 23/1111/COU  9 Portchester Close, Ingleby Barwick, Stockton-on-Tees for change of use from residential (C3) to mixed use Commercial and Residential to allow for a home business.

Following the Planning Committee meeting held on 6 August 2025, further searches by Officers had been conducted into other potential registered firearms dealers operating from residential properties within the Borough.

The search identified that there had been no planning applications made to accommodate the sale of firearms or ammunition operating from their home address within the Borough. Applications had been made and accepted in relation to workshops for the manufacture and/or repair of guns on the periphery of the conurbation in the 1990’s.

In some cases, pre-application advice had been provided in relation to gun repairs, servicing and sales. In all these instances planning permission was deemed to not be required, as sales were either not taking place at the home address or it was indicated as being limited to a maximum of two visits per week. With the overall level of activity being significantly less than proposed in this application.

Additional comments have been received by the Designing out Crime Officer and the Firearms Licensing Manager within Cleveland Police. Again, their comments did not alter the original recommendation for refusal.

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 refused for the reasons 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:

- Statements made by the applicant in terms of services provided by Cleveland Police were not accurate as confirmed by Cleveland Police who did not support the application.

- It was felt that the supporting statements received for the application were bizarre with some supporters living as far as 12 miles away.

- There had been conflicting information relating to parking spaces at the proposed site.

- Traffic concerns were raised due to 2 businesses already operating close to the proposed application which exacerbated parking on the road and kerbs causing safeguarding issues for pedestrians.

- The proposed application was in a residential area which was not appropriate for a firearms business. The business would be advertised, and people would know that there would be firearms at the property.

- This was normalising gun use.

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

- There was confusion over where the business sale and transaction would take place of the firearms.

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

- Officers understood that the transaction and processing of  ...  view the full minutes text for item P/29/25

Erection of a 1.50 metre brick/concrete base including placement of a Coffee Pot Engine atop (Planting of perimeter boundary hedge)

Consideration was given to planning application 25/1665/LA  Sponsored Roundabout Junction Council of Europe Boulevard, University Boulevard, Thornaby.

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a brick plinth with a smooth concrete top to be used as a base for the siting of the “Coffee Pot” steam locomotive, currently in storage at Preston Park Museum. This was to be sited in the centre of the sponsored roundabout on the junction of Council of Europe Boulevard and University Boulevard, Thornaby.

In accordance with the Council’s scheme of delegation, the application was to be determined by Planning Committee as it fell outside of the types of “minor” Council development that could be determined under delegated powers.

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 detailed within the main report, there was strong compliance with planning policies and the proposals would result in a positive contribution to the overall street scene. Consequently, it is recommended that the application be approved with conditions for the reasons specified in the report.

Members welcomed the application which would be a good attraction within the Borough.

A vote took place and the application was approved.

RESOLVED that planning application 25/1665/LA  Sponsored Roundabout Junction Council of Europe Boulevard, University Boulevard, Thornaby be approved subject to the following conditions and informative;

01 Time Limit

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

02 Approved Plans

The development hereby approved shall be in accordance with the following approved plan(s);

Plan Reference Number                                         Date Received

25122-HL-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-1600-S4-P03                  11 August 2025

25122-HL-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-2100-S4-P04                  11 August 2025

SBC0001                                                                   7 August 2025

INFORMATIVE OF REASON FOR PLANNING APPROVAL

Working Practices

The Local Planning Authority found the submitted details satisfactory subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and has worked in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with the planning application.

The appeals were noted.