Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2024 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record subject to the following amendment:-

Councillor Thomson requested that in relation to the enforcement schedule 2 Pearl Street Saltburn members be provided with correspondence which details the change in policy regarding enforcement,

RESOLVED that the attendance matrix be noted.

The officer summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated.

Members debated the application and made the following comments:-

·       Could we be reminded of the maximum height of a fence permitted on a boundary?

·       Any information as to why the fence was erected before planning permission was granted?

·       Would like to see the posts cut down so that the trellis can not be re-instated;

·       Note the residents comments regarding vehicles and visibility but having visited the site the narrowness of the road and the presence of parked cars would make it very difficult for any vehicle to speed;

·       The reduced height of the fence has improved visibility at the junction;

·       There was a similar fence on Dorset Road;

·       Would be improved by being painted.

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

1.     The fencing hereby approved shall not be altered in height or material from the details as shown in the photographs taken on the 15^th February 2024 (copies attached to the decision notice).

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

2.     The fence hereby approved shall be painted a dark brown colour and the posts reduced to the same height of the fence boards on the relevant post within six months of the date of this approval.

         REASON: To ensure that the appearance of the development would respect the site and the surroundings in accordance with policy SD4 of the Local Plan.

The officer summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated.

The applicant was present and made the following comments:-

·       More information had been provided since the last meeting;

·       The Ward Member had spoken at the last meeting with concerns about the impact on the local area and the community hall however it was the intention to add to Skinningrove not to take away;

·       No hot food would be served;

·       The cabin would occupy a small space;

·       Would be prepared to clean up the area;

·       A lot of people had been encouraging.

Members questioned the applicant on the following points:-

·       Have you looked at other sites within the village?

·       Why was it necessary to be on the car park;

·       Had other positions in the car park been considered;

·       Apart from hot drinks what other refreshments would be served?

·       Why Skinningrove?

·       A photograph of the cabin had been supplied however had it been designed specifically for you or was it bought off the shelf?

·       Were you aware that the area was on the Heritage Coast and that it needed to be in keeping with the area?

·       Was the cabin permanently fixed as the Ward Member had previously had concerns regarding access to the Northumbrian Water site;

Members debated the application and made the following comments:-

·       The application needed to be considered against Policy N1 due the nature of the asset and the fact that the application was for a permanent feature;

·       The land was not adopted;

·       A Street Café Licence was not relevant;

·       Uncomfortable with agreeing to impose upon a facility which is a car park;

·       Car parks were a limited resource in tourist areas;

·       Changing the use of a car park into a refreshment area;

·       The applicant had not considered other sites;

·       Do not think with all the caveats that it was a pertinent policy to restrict access to the Heritage Coast;

·       Establishing a principle of allowing catering establishments on the Heritage Coast was not the right step,

·       According to the applicant there were already 3 caravans parked on the car park so did not think this cabin would make much difference;

·       Should encourage small businesses;

·       The applicant had met with officers to discuss their requirements before proceeding with the application;

·       The cabin looked nice;

·       The argument that the cabin would take up 3 spaces was not relevant bearing in mind the size of the car park;

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 (2024.016_B1) received by the Local Planning Authority on  20/02/2024

Existing and proposed site plan (2024.016_B2) received by the Local Planning Authority on 20/02/2024

Proposed plans and elevations (2024.016_B3) received by the Local Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

The officer summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated.

Members sought questions of clarification around the following matters;

·       Had all landowners been consulted and if so, were there any representations from landowners other than highways;

·       Was there a requirement for remediation measures within the conditions relating to funding?

·       Was there any Section 106 Agreement in place due to the disruption to the environment and losing part of the infrastructure;

·       Whilst we have heard that the proposal would not trigger a Section 106 Agreement were there no requests regarding the effect on the environment;

·       If this application were approved would it meet the requirements of the transport hub;

·       Were there any figures that demonstrated that this was a bottleneck;

·       Were we gaining as a Local Authority from changes to this roundabout;

·       Any future development may result in further changes being required.

The applicant present made the following comments;

·       The applications falls out of the approval for the Lackenby site and will add to capacity;

·       All development was either in Tees Valley ownership or was adopted highway.

Members questioned the applicant on the following points:-

·       If approval were not to be granted what would be the alternative route to the site?

·       Why proceed with the application now when there would be other developments on that site;

·       Would doing the alterations now would future proof the site;

·       Are you confident the changes will apply before the transport hub is developed and that these changes will deal with that development;

·       What provision if any, had been made for cyclists.

Members debated the application and made the following comments:-

·       The development was looking to the future and if the application were not to be approved it would simply divert traffic elsewhere;

·       It was essential that the infrastructure was in place to allow Tees Works development to proceed at a pace;

·       Support in principle if the issue of flooding were to be addressed;

·       Disappointed that there was no provision to contribute to the negative effect which would inevitably occur due to the destruction of the curtilage;

·       The environment should not be sacrificed for industrial development purposes;

·       The application was within development limits and would improve the highway network;

·       The A66 was a busy road and the current road layout was confusing;

·       The Local Authority are gaining as we would have had to improve the roundabout;

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 (Dwg No. R-SD-10.00) received by the Local Planning Authority on 28/11/23

          Proposed Site Plan (Dwg No. R-SD-10.02) received by the Local Planning Authority on 28/11/23

          Preliminary Layout Plan (Dwg No. 279257-ARP-15-XX-DR-CH-0101) received by the Local Planning Authority on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

The officer summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated.

Members sought clarification around the following matters;

·       Have you any idea of the timescales for the reserved matters application;

·       Would like to see the reserved matters application come to committee;

·       Cannot see details of the proposed delivery of the infrastructure?

·       Cannot see any reference to EV charging points?

·       Where was the recognition of climate change and renewable energy provision;

·       Had the recommendation from Cleveland Police seeking Secure by Design been included?

·       There was a request for a Travel Plan to be prepared;

·       How had contamination on the eight sites been addressed?

·       Would this development trigger a Section 106 Agreement;

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

·       The travel hub was a complementary offer to the parking facility at Steel House;

·       It would provide HGV parking;

·       The development would include Secure by Design, renewables and EV charging points;

·       Tees Works were committed to using local workforce.

Members questioned the applicant on the following points:-

·       What discussions had taken place with local organisations regarding biodiversity;

·       Would surface water and water used on the site be contained within the site?

·       Why were there so many parking spaces provided when this was one of two parking facilities?

Members debated the application and made the following comments:-

·       In favour of HGV parking as they currently had to park off site;

·       150 HGV spaces which could be controlled;

·       This proposal was essential for the future development of the Tees Works site and brought back into use a piece of derelict land.

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

1.       Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

          REASON: To reserve the rights of the Local Planning Authority with regard to these matters and required to be imposed pursuant to Sections 91 and 92 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is later. 

          REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Sections 91 and 92 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

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

          Proposed Parameters Plan (Dwg No. P-10.02) received by the Local Planning Authority on 28/11/23

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

4.       Prior to the construction of the final surface treatment, for any hard surfaced areas, details of the materials to be used shall have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 154.

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.

A Member requested that Saltburn Ward Members be provided with the narrative associated with the application at 32 Eden Street Saltburn.

:-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 enforcement actions which had been undertaken.

A Member expressed concern regarding the resources made available for enforcement and stated that any backlog should be addressed.

:-NOTED.