Agenda item

Prior to the meeting Members visited the site.

Consideration was given to planning application 22/2300/FUL, 12 Hartburn Village, Stockton-onTees, TS18 5EB.

Members originally considered the application at the Planning Committee meeting which was held on the 15th March 2023 however the application was deferred to enable the committee to consider additional information relating to public consultation and for a committee site visit to take place.

The neighbouring residents had made additional comments which were detailed within the main report.

The application site host dwelling was a detached Victorian period dwelling sited within Hartburn’s Conservation Area (covered by Article 4 Directions) in Stockton-on-Tees. The application sought planning permission for the replacement of an existing flat roof to a rear extension with a mono-pitch roof with the installation of a doorway to the existing extension. Revised plans were sought to change a hipped roof design to a mono-pitch roof to alleviate boundary concerns from neighbouring residents.

The applicant was an employee of Stockton-on Tees Borough Council, hence why the application was considered at Planning Committee.

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 proposed extension by virtue of its scale, proportions, and design, was not considered to cause a detrimental impact to the character and appearance of the Hartburn Conservation Area or adjacent listed buildings/structures. Furthermore, in respect of residential amenity, the proposed extension did not cause a significant loss of amenity or privacy to neighbouring properties.

In view of the above, it was recommended that the application be approved subject to those conditions set out within the report.

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

- concerns were raised about how consultations were carried out and if the wider community had been consulted as All Saints Church had not been included in the consultation in the first instance

- letters had also been sent out stating that officers were no longer conducting site visits due to COVID-19, however it was acknowledged the letter had now been amended

- there was an error on one of the drawings

- it was felt a condition was required to enable common access to be maintained at all times during the time period the works were to be carried out for All Saints Church and other neighbours

- assurances were sought that there would be no overshadowing in a neighbouring properties yard

- clarity was sought as to whether obscured glazing had been considered for the skylights in the roof

- officers were asked why a slate roof had not been conditioned to maintain the look of the group of cottages the property was part of.

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

- regards public consultation, offices explained that those residents that were directly affected by an application would be written to, and depending on the type of application the wider population may be contacted as dictated by guidance

- officers confirmed that the letter which had been sent out to residents in error relating to site visits had been rectified and that visits were being carried out and had been since 2020

- in terms of the drawing with the error this had been checked by the case officer and was referenced within the report

- concerns raised about the common access was a civil matter and therefore a planning condition was not necessary

- it was confirmed that there would be no additional overshadowing from the roof due to the way the sun moved.

- the skylight was to the rear of the property and discreet and would have no significant view of neighbour’s properties

- the grey concrete tile was appropriate for the roof and although not exactly the same was similar to what other residential homes had.

A vote took place, and the application was approved.

RESOLVED that planning application 22/2300/FUL 12 Hartburn Village, Stockton-on-Tees TS18 5EB application for replacement of existing flat roof with pitched roof to include installation of external door of existing extension be approved subject to the following conditions and informatives:

01 Time Period for Commencement

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

2037-418-00-ZZ-DR-A-1100-S3-P02 4 November 2022 2037-418-00-ZZ-DR-A-1200-S3-P02 3 November 2022

SBC0001 28 November 2022

2037-418-00-ZZ-DR-A-2000-S3-P03 13 February 2023 2037-418-00-ZZ-DR-A-2100-S3-P03 13 February 2023

03 External Finishing Materials The external finishing materials shall be of a similar appearance to that of the existing building and shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

INFORMATIVE OF REASON FOR PLANNING APPROVAL Informative: Working Practices The Local Planning Authority found the submitted details satisfactory subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and has