Agenda and minutes

Councillor Clark declared an interest in application R/2024/0506/CD and took no part in the discussion nor voted thereon.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Regulatory Committee held on 25 July 2024 and the Taxi Panel held on the 27 August 2024 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

RESOLVED that the attendance matrix be noted.

The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment advised Members that this application had been withdrawn.

:-NOTED.

Councillor Clarke declared an interest in the following application and took no part in the discussion nor voted thereon.

The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated.

Councillors King and Learoyd were not in attendance but had requested that their objections be read out.

Councillor King requested a deferment for a meeting with the Ward Councillors.

Councillor Learoyd requested a deferment to allow a Section 73 application to be made.

Members sought questions of clarification around the following matters;

·       Network Rail had advised that they had no further comment however what was their original comment and what were the conditions;

·       Why did the drawing of Redcar Lane not show any improvement on the exit road on the roundabout in the northerly direction?

·       Would have been helpful to have had sight of the Transport Assessment;

·       Believed the road would be dualled and would like to see a schedule to allow that to happen as the development would add volume to the traffic;

·       Were we pushing for the dual carriageway element?

·       With regard to the route through Marske there was potential for restrictions which would cause tailbacks. Had this been taken into account?

·       How many phases were there with the development?

·       The changes at the bridge would not impact the first two phases and would allow time for an alternative scheme if finances were found;

·       How would it effect access to the private properties and the coal yard.

The objectors at the meeting made the following comments:-

·       The drawings were the second that had been presented. The drawings submitted on the 1 July contained technical errors and were not fit for purpose. The application submitted on the 4 September showed the pedestrian crossing to the south of the railway bridge, the signal stop line had moved to the north. The coal yard access was not under signal control. The technical errors had been rectified however there were still omissions which would compromise safety. There were no barrier rails and the footway was only 1.2m wide;

·       Vehicles queueing would block access to the coal yard and the residential properties;

·       The developers would be unlikely to build footways for 3 to 4 years;

·       There should be road safety audits before the scheme was implemented;

·       Requested deferment until phase 3;

Members questioned the objector on the following points:

·       Asked on what basis the objector was challenging any technical errors in the drawings;

The representative from the Parish Council made the following comments;

·       The proposed traffic light scheme formed part of the pre application discussions in 2012;

·       The application was refused and taken to appeal and the Secretary of State’s decision requested conditions including improvements to highway safety;

·       The application was only before Members today because of a corporate complaint as the agreement with the Residents Steering Group had been broken;

·        The discharge of this condition would not meet the requirement of the Secretary of State;

·       Access to the station and the village could be provided by other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment advised Members that on the 30 July 2024, the Government published a consultation on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The consultation period closes on the 24 September 2024. The report provided information to members of Regulatory Committee on the proposed amendments to the NPPF and other proposed changes to the planning system.

Officers responses to the consultation questions, taking into account the technical considerations of implementing the proposals , having been presented in Appendix 1 for reference. The consultation was open to individual responses and details of the consultation and ways to respond could be found at:

https:www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system.

Members made the following comments:-

·       How would this effect the strategic gap in the Local Plan?

·       A Member requested that confirmation that the changes would not effect the strategic gap be noted;

·       Requested guidance on the timescale;

·       No capacity to increase land availability?

·       Do the changes to the NPPF change our requirements?

·       When would the Local Plan be reviewed?

:-NOTED.

The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment  summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated.

Members sought questions of clarification around the following matters;

·       How would we enforce condition 8?

·       Disappointed that the nutrient neutrality scheme was not being provided on site;

·       Where would the delivery of the private scheme off site take place?

·       The building itself whilst constructed of wood was rather large;

·       It was a two bed bungalow rather than a chalet;

·       The wooden fence shown on the photographs was now a brick wall. Was that a breach and was it permitted?

·       Can we monitor the use of the building if it were to be approved?

The objector present at the meeting made the following comments:-

·       Object to the application on the grounds of planning policy;

·       There was no justification for the building;

·       Question whether it conformed with Policy SD3 of the Local Plan?

·       As the chalet was for private use was the criteria met?

·       It was a private holiday chalet and not for tourism use;

·       The applicant had already been given planning permission for a day room in order to visit the site and check on the welfare of his ponies;

·       It would appear that the applicant now wanted to live on the site;

·       It was not temporary accommodation;

·       The horses were for the applicant’s personal use;

·       The applicant had chosen to keep horses away from where he lived;

·       Condition 8 would mean that every site would be eligible for a holiday home;

·       The building would be for residential use;

·       There was no local or planning policy justification.

The agent present at the meeting made the following comments:-

·       The boundary treatment was outside the applicant’s curtilage;

·       The application was for a holiday chalet for private use;

·       The applicant currently had 12 miniature ponies on the site;

·       The applicant lived in Gateshead;

·       The chalet would not be visible from Middlesbrough Road apart from the ridgeline.

·       The applicant had no intention of residing in the area;

·       The applicant had paid £5000 for offsite mitigation;

·       The occupation would be controlled by condition and enforcement;

·       Request approval with the conditions as set out and the mitigation measures.

Members questioned the agent on the following points:-

·       Where would the nitrate credit scheme be provided?

·       Where nitrate offset was to take place the details should be provided so that it could be recorded in the system.

Members debated the applicationand made the following comments:-

·       We have been back and forth over the years with this site;

·       Will it be just like a chalet.

Following the debate members resolved to grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:-

1.The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date of this permission.

REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location plan; site plan; plans and elevations (TPS001b) received by the Local Planning Authority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178.

The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated.

Members sought questions of clarification around the following matters;

·       There was no reference to the storage of waste within the building;

·       The premises had been an eyesore for a number of years;

·       Confirm why we were going against the highways recommendation for the provision of 4 car parking spaces;

·        What was the distance between the premises and the adjacent buildings?

At this point Councillor Thomson left the meeting.

The agent present made the following comments:-

·       This application had been submitted following a previous approval;

·       This was a full application which varied and improved on the previous design and included two additional apartments and a restaurant function room;

·       The applicant had paid £14,500 to Natural England for credits to mitigate the scheme;

·       The required separation distance from the premises to the nearest property was 21 metres this scheme was 23 metres.

Members questioned the agent on the following points;

·       Normanby currently had empty retail units and it did not need any more takeaways;

·       Planning Permission had been originally granted a year ago and the applicant had gone away and tweaked the plans;

·       If Planning Permission were to be granted today what would be the timescale to completion?

·       Adding two bedrooms and a function room but are you increasing the curtilage of the building?

Members debated the application and made the following comments:-

·       The premises had been vacant for several years;

·       There would be no increase in the size of the site;

·       The premises were in the commercial area of Normanby;

·       No valid reason to refuse;

·       Ward Members have no objections.

Following the debate members resolved to grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:-

At this point Councillor Martin left the meeting.

Councillor Clark took the Chair for this particular item.

The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated.

Members sought questions of clarification around the following matters;

·       Were there any restrictions preventing the property being used as a holiday let?

·       Concerned it might set a precedent;

·       Disappointed in the lack of parking as this property could have 4/5 vehicles;

·       Hope they did not use the back alley for parking;

·       What was the reason for the withdrawal of the previous application?

The agent present at the meeting made the following comments;

·       The application was for the demolition of the existing garage to provide a two storey building;

·       It would not be a holiday let;

·       Fits in with the scale and design in the location;

·       The development would have a positive impact on the heritage asset;

·       The property was a similar scale to the adjacent house;

·       Worked with the Conservation Officer to come up with the design;

·       It would add to the housing stock;

·       The property was in a sustainable location;

·       All consultations had been concluded.

Members questioned the agent on the following points;

·       In relation to the scale and design would it be like for like with the adjacent property?

·       What were the plans in relation to construction?

·       The builder had a history of flat building in the Town and lived locally;

·       Who would manage the property?

Members debated the application and made the following comments:-

·       The proposal would provide additional accommodation;

·       The proposal was similar to what was there already;

·       The property was within development limits and the Conservation Officer was happy with it;

·       The agent had confirmed that it would be constructed of brick;

·       Would have had greater concerns had the adjacent property had windows that overlooked ;

·       Still had concerns over parking.

Following the debate members resolved to grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:-

1.The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date of this permission.

REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Site & Location Plans and Boundary Elevations (ref 003) received by the Local Planning Authority on 12.06.2024

Proposed Plans and Elevations (ref 002 B) received by the Local Planning Authority on 19.06.2024

REASON: To accord with the terms of the planning application.

3.Prior to construction above ground level, full details and/or samples of all materials including bricks, sills, slates, coping stones / water tables, rainwater gutters and pipes, windows and doors, to be used in the external elevations and for the roof, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To safeguard the special character of the conservation area and the setting of nearby listed buildings, as required by Policy HE1 & HE2 of the adopted Local Plan.

4.Prior  ...  view the full minutes text for item 180.

Councillor Clark took the Chair for the following application.

The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated.

Members sought questions of clarification around the following matters;

·       There was mention in the report of steel steps and them being slippy. What measures had been taken to reduce this?

·       Can you confirm that the steps were not wood and that there would be two handrails?

·       Who was paying for the proposal;

·       Had there been any complaints about the existing steps?

Members debated the application and made the following comments:-

·       The steps were well used and needed to be replaced;

·       Steel was being used due its long life and they would incorporate an element of non slip;

·       The proposal was welcomed by residents;

·       The design was appropriate.

Following the debate members resolved to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

1.The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date of this permission.

REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 20/06/2024

Site Plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 20/06/2024

Proposed plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 26/06/2024

REASON: To accord with the terms of the planning application.

Councillor Smith resumed the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment circulated a schedule of delegated decisions determined by the Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment under the delegated power procedure.

:-NOTED.

The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment presented Members with a schedule of the appeals which had been received.

:-NOTED.

The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment presented Members with a schedule of the appeals which had been received.

:-NOTED.

R/2024/0419/F3 Replacement of existing concrete steps with steel staircase Dis-used railway embankment Guisborough Rugby Club Belmangate Guisborough.

Deemed consent granted subject to the following conditions:-

1.The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date of this permission.

REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 20/06/2024

Site Plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 20/06/2024

Proposed plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 26/06/2024

REASON: To accord with the terms of the planning application.

R/2024/0422/F3M Public Realm works, including re-alignment of highways, parking and footpaths, additional pedestrian crossings, new street furniture, lighting, and other hard and soft landscaping Land at Westgate, Market Place, Chaloner Street, Church Street and Fountain Street, Guisborough.

The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment advised Members that this application had been withdrawn.

:-NOTED.