Agenda item

Consideration was given to 23/1709/ADV Land Off St Martins Way, Kirklevington.

Retrospective advertisement consent was sought for signage at a Taylor Wimpey residential building site in Kirklevington.

Advertisement consent had already been approved for signage at the site, but the signage had not been erected in accordance with the approved plans and this application was to rectify that matter.

A number of objections had been received to the signage and the comments had been fully considered and addressed in the report.

Advertisement applications could only be considered with highway safety or public amenity in mind, and it was not considered that there were sufficient reasons to warrant refusal of the application and therefore the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions as detailed within the main report.

Members were presented with an update report which since the original report detailed additional comments which had been received from the Environmental Health Team as well as comments from a neighbour who was unable to attend the committee meeting and had asked for their comments to be provided to Members for consideration. Full details of the comments were detailed within the update report.

The comments from the Environmental Health Team and the Neighbour were noted, however the issues of noise had already been considered in full at paragraph 22 of the main report and did not change the Officers original recommendation.

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 specified within the main report.

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

. Residents sheer exacerbation was completely understood. Taylor Wimpey had broken conditions, and this was the final straw, which had come on top of a long list of problems.

. This was possibly the worst housing development site in the Kirklevington and Yarm area. The flags / flagpoles and signage were complete overkill, they should have just placed them where they were given permission for.

. This issue should have been tackled with enforcement, and the developer should have been made to move the signage / flagpoles to where they had permission for.

. If the main offending flagpole was moved this would elevate the issue for residents in terms of noise.

. The flagpoles had temporary consent and would be removed on or before 11 August 2026.

. The noise created from the flags was upsetting to residents, the developer should compromise and move the offending flagpole?

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

. Officers informed the Committee that developers could erect 2 flagpoles anywhere without planning consent.

. In terms of enforcement being used, in the first instance the developer would be given the opportunity to rectify the issue regards what they did not have consent for, however if the application was refused at Planning Committee only the removal of 2 of the 4 flagpoles could be enforced.

. The actual material used for the flags was a thin tenting material and noise was not significant.

. The initial assessment of the application was for the flag to be held with metal, however following a site visit it was not held with metal on metal and therefore it could not be considered a statutory nuisance, therefore Environmental Health would not be able to enforce anything in terms of statutory nuisance.

. Members were reminded that to enforce against the current situation there had to be some harm compared to the original approval and there would need to be expedient reasons to enforce. If there was no harm in terms of planning merits the application could not be refused

A motion was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to allow the developer to be approached to seek removal of 1no flagpole.

A vote took place, and the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that retrospective planning 23/1709/ADV Land Off St Martins Way, Kirklevington, be deferred for the reasons as detailed above.