Agenda item

Consideration was given to planning application 24/2110/RET 93 Bishopton Road, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18 4PG.

 

The application site, was No.93 Bishopton Road and currently there was an unauthorised and incomplete dwelling and various building detritus owing to the construction of the property ceasing. Previously the site was occupied by a 1.5 storey dormer bungalow which had been given permission for extensions and alterations. However, the property was demolished, and construction of the replacement dwelling was ultimately halted due to non-compliance with previous planning permissions.

 

Retrospective planning permission was being sought for the demolition of the existing original dwelling, and part of the partially completed dwellinghouse to create a single dwelling.

 

The rear elevation of the proposals would be brought in from the southern boundary to address the reasons for refusal which were due to sub-standard separation distances between a neighbouring dwelling and a sub-standard rear garden size. The proposed re-siting of the rear elevation would then meet with the required separation distances and be consistent with the rear elevation previously approved through extensions and alterations to the original property.

 

The consultees that had been notified and any comments that had been received were detailed within the main report.

 

Neighbours were notified and any 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 approved with conditions for the reasons as specified within the main 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 derelict appearance of the building site and safety issues.

 

- There had been a lack of building activity on the site for over a year resulting in Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).

 

- There had been reports of vermin on the site.

 

- The Local Planning Authority had a duty to deal with untidy and semi complete sites that affected local amenity under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Local Planning Authority were urged to use their powers under section 215 to improve the site.

 

- If the Committee were minded to approve the application there would still be no guarantees when or if any active building would take place.

 

- Concerns were raised relating to the garage on the proposed site and whether the asbestos test carried out was genuine.

 

- The building was not in keeping with the surrounding area particularly the proposed rendering as most houses within close proximity were red brick.

 

- It was requested that a suitable boundary between Hazelbrook and the proposed site be conditioned, as well as a fence around the whole of the property and not the current proposed wall as there were concerns in terms of the materials that would be used for the proposed wall.

 

- Clarity was sought as to why the planning inspectorate had refused the previous application.

 

- Repeated requests had been made for the developer to tidy up the site.

 

- The site was attracting vermin and Antisocial Behaviour, and repeated requests had been made to the Police and the Antisocial Behaviour team to address residents’ concerns.

 

- A local resident reported that they had received threats of violence from people involved in Antisocial Behaviour as well as having objects thrown at them.

 

- The new retrospective application did not address residents’ concerns.

 

- There was a collapsed fence in the garden at the property site and the garage wall was collapsing into Hazelbrook which was considered dangerous and causing anxiety to neighbours.

 

- The garage was not included in the demolition application which was unbelievable due to the current state of it.

 

- Clarity was sought relating to a large tree at the front of the property and whether this could be felled or pruned without permission, and if criminal proceedings would be undertaken if it was taken down.

 

 - It was asked if the property would be the developer’s primary home.

 

- Had any building control assessments been made to the current structure as there were doubts that the specified materials on the drawings had not been used such as a different type of cavity insulation than what had been specified.

 

- If the site was sold as it currently stood would a new developer be able to build a different structure?

 

- The building looked like an office block and was extremely high and would impact on loss of privacy for the neighbouring property.

 

- The garden at the proposed property was not adequate for a 4 bed house.

 

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

 

- It was confirmed that no inspections had been undertaken on the site to guarantee compliance to building regulations.

 

- The applicant had constructed the property without the correct permission and therefore was instructed to cease building.

 

- Officers had been in dialogue with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and there had been a number of requests relating to behaviour, scaffolding, tidiness etc

 

- Officers had investigated the possibility of serving a S215 with the Councils legal service however the advice received was that it was not the appropriate form of action to take, therefore officers had been in contact with the applicant to try and resolve issues directly, hence the retrospective application. Officers also confirmed that should the application be approved the demolition and build would be monitored over a 3-month period and if the build was not carried out within the agreed time frame, enforcement action would be considered.

 

- It was confirmed that the planning inspector had dismissed a previous appeal on grounds of privacy and insufficient size of the garden for a 4 bed property hence why the build was pulled back at the rear elevation by 3 metres to improve the rear garden space and separation distances which in planning terms would be satisfactory.

 

- The materials for the boundary wall would be red brick. Where the house was to have render, this was in keeping with some properties on Bishopton Road, Allendale and Stanhope Road, although it was acknowledged that the majority of homes in close proximity were red brick. Officers also felt that render would look better than buff brick.

 

- The applicant had the right to apply for retrospective planning permission and the Council had a duty to consider the application.

 

- Where concerns had been raised relating to the tree outside of the property, the tree was protected with a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) therefore if there were any breaches an investigation would be undertaken to determine if prosecution was required.

 

- In terms of the construction of the building this would be a matter for building control.

 

- Officers confirmed that the garden was sufficient in terms of size.

 

- Officers had been informed that the house was to be the primary residence of the applicant, however this was not a planning matter.

 

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

 

- Whatever the committee’s decision, the site would need constant monitoring, as well as cleaning up and being made safe before any building was restarted.

 

- Clarity was sought in terms of privacy for neighbouring properties

 

- There had been a deliberate breach of planning law which raised concerns of future breaches possibly causing more anxiety and anguish to the local community.

 

- It was suggested that the building should be demolished and rebuilt as per the original plans.

 

- There were 2 trees with Tree preservation Orders (TPO’s) one of which was covered in ivy, and which was not expected to survive however it was positioned coming out of Allendale onto Stanhope Road and severely affected sight lines.

 

- The materials which would be used were not in keeping with adjacent properties or any that were near the proposal. The boundary wall was to be ‘Ibstock Balmoral facing brickwork’ which was a yellow buff which if allowed would look hideous.

 

- Antisocial Behaviour was a major concern, the site was also dangerous for children and residents with young people reported climbing on scaffolding.

 

- The situation on the site had been going on for too long and when the applicant did stop building, they left the site with no attempt to tidy it up, allowing anyone access at any time. Antisocial Behaviour Officers had been contacted numerous times and had visited the site on 26 occasions.

 

- The current garage on the proposed site was dangerous and needed to come down. The roof was caving in, and it wasn’t fit for use.

 

- The construction was terrible and there were grave concerns over privacy for neighbours, 11 metres separation was not adequate.

 

- Clarity was sought as to why the S215 could not be enforced, when the appeal was dismissed and when this application was submitted.

 

- What was the point of building control getting involved if there was no planning permission?

 

- Officers were asked what would happen if the Committee refused the application.

 

- It was felt that the application was contrary to policies SD3(criterion 7) & SD8 (criterion 1a, e and g and 2) of the Stockton on Tees Local Plan and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework

 

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

 

- In terms of privacy and impact to Hazelbrook, separation distances had been met therefore the application was considered acceptable.

 

- Where concerns had been raised relating to visibility at the junction of Allendale and Stanhope Road due to the condition of the tree, the condition of the tree did not affect visibility. The tree was on private land and would need to be on the adopted highway to be measured. It was not up to the applicant to resolve those kinds of issues.

 

- Officers explained that planning officers had visited the site with enforcement officers and applicant and informed the applicant of the appeal decision and discussed what the next steps were. An agreement was reached that minimum separation distances would be met of 11 metres and stressed to the applicant that the site required tidying up. S215 was not considered as there was a relatively short time from the appeal to the submission of the new application.

 

- It was believed that the applicant had gone down the private building regulations route rather than applying with Stockton Councils building control service, and it would be expected that private building control would have undertaken due diligence.

 

- If the application was refused the applicant would have the right to appeal and or resubmit a new application.

 

- Members could decide if the colour of the brick and or render was acceptable.

 

A vote took place and the application was refused.

 

RESOLVED that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority retrospective application 24/2110/RET 93 Bishopton Road, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18 4PG be refused for the reasons as detailed below:

 

1) By virtue of its scale and proportions, design, layout and use of materials would not be a high quality design solution and would fail to respond positively to the quality, character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding area and harm neighbouring residents privacy and amenity, contrary to policies SD3(criterion 7) & SD8 (criterion 1a, e and g and 2) of the Stockton on Tees Local Plan and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.