Agenda item

 

Consideration was given to planning application 23/0364/FUL Erection of 2no two storey apartment buildings to create 10no dwellings. Land East Of 232 Cotswold Crescent, Billingham, TS23 2QN.

 

Planning permission was sought for the erection of 2no, two storey apartment buildings to provide 10no single storey dwellings, together with associated works to provide an improved vehicle and pedestrian access, vehicle parking and landscaping.

 

The application site related to a parcel of brownfield land located within an urban, residential area of Billingham. The redevelopment of the site for residential purposes, would be commensurate with the surrounding residential land uses, therefore the principle of development in this location was considered acceptable.

 

The application had been assessed in full, and it was considered that the development would not result in any significant conflict with the policies of the Local Plan or relevant chapters of the NPPF and there were no technical reasons why the proposed scheme would be deemed unacceptable in planning terms in which to justify refusal of the application.

 

In accordance with the Councils scheme of delegation, the application was to be determined by Planning Committee due to the number of objections received to the proposed 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 assessment contained within 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 within the report.

 

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

 

- The site was unsuitable to hold a residential site.

 

- The road infrastructure was unsuitable due to insufficient car parking for the current residents. Some vehicles were already being parked on the paths.

 

- The plans to change 232 Cotswold Crescent to widen the access to the proposed development meant the front garden would be removed and the access road would be right up to the adjacent house.

 

- There would be disruption to the local pigeon club which had been operating for over 50 years, with insufficient car parking spaces for members, many who required ease of access to the club.

 

- It was felt that more spaces could be provided at the proposed development to ease car parking issues.

 

- When the site was cleared of the previous garage blocks, there was a mess left with heavy plant machinery going in and out. The landlord should have been held responsible for this.

 

- Would future residents for the proposed development be vetted?

 

- Anti Social Behaviour was a worry.

 

- Traffic noise would impact residents.

 

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

           

- This was a brown field site, and the principle of development was acceptable in planning terms.

 

- The developer had been working on this proposal for 18 months to 2 years and had come up with a new scheme following the refusal of the last submitted planning application.

 

- The proposal was 10 apartments split over 2 blocks and was in keeping with neighbouring properties.

 

- All necessary surveys had been undertaken, there had been no objections from statutory regulatory authorities and residents’ objections had been addressed.

 

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

 

- Ward Councillor Barry Woodhouse drew the Committee’s attention to the objection he had submitted during the consultation period which was contained within the main report. The site was prone to flooding. There were large areas of grass which would not be maintained and could possibly invite Anti-Social Behaviour. It appeared that the entrance to the site would not have a hard edge which was a worry. The site was overdeveloped , causing residents issues such as parking, damage to vehicles and it would destroy the pigeon club, a great organisation that had been there for over 50 years. There were only 4 car parking spaces proposed for allotment holders, a lot of which were disabled badge holders and would need ease of access. Cllr Woodhouse urged the Committee to refuse the application as it was not suitable for urban development. Councillor Woodhouse then left the meeting.

 

- Clarity was sought relating to property 230 and 232 Cotswold Crescent as the plans appeared to be showing that both those properties had lost a portion of their rear garden. Was this to provide shared allotment parking? And had the applicant acquired these sites from other people?

 

- Questions were raised relating to the number of car parking spaces allocated to each apartment?

 

- Was property 232 Cotswold Crescent being demolished to make space for the entrance to the proposed development?

 

- Concerns were raised regarding the noise assessment relating to the railway and not additional traffic and how the noise of additional traffic impacted on residents.

 

- Cotswold Crescent was a traditional cul-de-sac with a hammer head and to make an entrance from the hammer head to the proposed desolate piece of land would create a thoroughfare from multiple vehicle movements per day from residents of the apartments. Vehicles would also be squeezing past houses on Cotswold Cresent to enter and exit the proposed development.

 

- It was felt that this development was just adding to back land from the cul-de-sac changing the landscape and amenity, people buy homes in a cul-de-sac for peace and quiet.

 

- Clarity was sought in terms of whether a bin store was provided.

 

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

 

- In terms of questions raised relating to the rear gardens of 230 and 232 Cotswold Crescent, the Planning Services Manager informed the Committee he would need to check to see if notice had been served on the landowner and report back to Members.

 

- Officers confirmed that 1.5 car parking spaces would be allocated to each apartment.

 

- It was confirmed that only the garage of 232 Cotswold Crescent would be demolished to widen access to the proposed site.

 

- The Environmental Protection Team Manager explained that a traffic movement noise assessment had been undertaken, and it was expected that there would be an additional 10 to 20 ins and outs which would not hit the threshold to carry out the noise assessment. There was more concern over the nearby trains, hence the noise assessment being carried out concerning the railway.

 

- Regards allotment holder parking, they only currently had informal parking with no legal right to park, however the proposal would provide them with 4 formal spaces.

 

- The proposed access met design standards and was suitable for the development and was deemed fit for 2-way traffic. It was also highlighted that you couldn’t call it a thoroughfare as traffic went in and out the same way.

 

- In terms of heritage this was not a conservation or historical site. If it was felt the development was out of character however it must be specified what the harm was in terms of being out of character.

 

Officers confirmed there would be 2 bin stores on the development site.

 

A vote took place and the application was refused.

 

RESOLVED that planning application 23/0364/FUL Land East Of 232 Cotswold Crescent, Billingham, TS23 2QN be refused contrary to officers’ recommendation due to detrimental impact on the amenity of existing residents.