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;
- Are we able to
include a condition in relation to alternative deliveries of
nutrient neutrality as concerned that we were giving another
authority cart blanche;
- The War Memorial was
grade ii listed and yet the report did not contain the Conservation
Officer’s comments;
- The War Memorial
would be visible from this site;
- Does the fact that
there appeared to be no demand for flats in the area have any
bearing;
- The flats had been
moved to the back of the site but would still be visible behind the
houses;
- Was the site
identified in the Local Plan;
The objector present made the
following comments;
- There have been 401
objections which demonstrated that residents were not happy with
the application and the apartments in particular;
- The apartments would
dominate the street scene;
- There was no demand
for apartments in the area;
- There were a number
of blocks of flats close by which had been demolished;
- There was a threat to
a rise in the water table from this development;
- The ground near the
War Memorial was soft and boggy;
- Northumbrian Water
never object to any application;
- The development would
have an over bearing effect on the Grade ii War
Memorial;
- The development would
create traffic problems and the residents had been assured in the
past that Skippers Lane would not be opened up.
Members questioned the objector
on the following points;
·
The properties you referred to as having been
demolished in Spencerbeck were different to those proposed here so
are you against any development here?
The Ward Member present made
the following comments;
·
In support of the residents who objected to the
application as submitted;
·
Want to see development as the current buildings
were in a state of disrepair and were currently a magnet for
vandals;
·
In the first application in 2023 the flats were
located to the front of the development causing obstruction to the
Bowling Club and there followed a residents meeting attended by 135
residents. Subsequently the apartments were moved to the back of
the development overlooking the War Memorial;
·
At the second residents meeting it was made clear
that residents did not want apartments at all;
·
Further down Skippers Lane there had been a major
housing development;
·
The fields in this area had been reduced by over
development with a further 134 houses given permission at High
Farm, when was it going to end?
·
There would be an increase in traffic;
·
Residents would prefer to have seen smaller family
homes as there was no demand for apartments;
·
Recommend that the application be amended to remove
the apartments and replace with houses.
Members questioned the Ward
Member on the following points;
- Are you accepting of
the site being developed?
- Are you objecting to
the over development as the apartments were too dominant as the
height was only slightly higher than the adjacent
buildings;
- You referred to the
impact on the highway, do you have any information on traffic
flow;
- 30 car parking spaces
are to be provided does this reflect your concern?
- Did the planning
consultant attend the residents meetings?
- Residents want to see
development so is it the apartments that were the stumbling
block?
The agent present made the
following comments;
- The proposal was to
demolish the existing public house and construct a residential
development;
- The original
application was submitted in December 2022 and became valid in
2023;
- The access, layout
and scale were agreed;
- This was a brownfield
site perfect for development;
- The site was in a
sustainable location with local transport and services;
- The development would
get rid of a building that was currently attracting anti-social
behaviour;
- All aspects of the
proposal were compliant with policy;
- The numerous
objections were not material considerations;
- Nutrient neutrality
had been resolved;
- The flats were only
minimally higher than the dwellings;
- The nearest property
was 45-50 metres from the War Memorial;
- The scheme would add
to the shortage of housing;
- The proposal complied
with policy H20 as it provided an appropriate mix of
housing.
Members questioned the agent on
the following points;
- Were the flats
integral to the application?
- The plans had taken
two years to develop, what had been the issues?
- Have you inherited
the site plan from the previous architect?
- Why had the original
architect not continued with the proposal?
- One of the concerns
was the expected level of traffic. Have you seen any surveys which
had indicated the likely traffic flow levels?
- What were your views
in terms of site development and was there any opportunity for
reconsideration?
- Why was the applicant
not present at the meeting?
- Was there any
research carried out as to determine the demand for apartments in
the area?
- The entrance was via
a lane and not a road, did you see that as a problem?
Members debated the application
and made the following comments;
- The site should be
developed but concerned that the development of apartments appeared
to be over development;
- Moving the apartments
from one part of the site to another had not changed the
fundamental principle of the application;
- The agent appeared
not to be conversant with the history of the site;
- Requested further
consideration of the application as to whether the magnitude of the
apartments could be reviewed;
- Acknowledged that it
was a brown field site and that residents and Ward Councillors were
comfortable that some sort of development should go
ahead;
- There was a heritage
asset close by that sat in its own unique site;
- The part of the site
closest to the War Memorial at present was a car park however the
apartment block had now moved to the back of the site closer to the
War Memorial making a negative impact on the site;
- The proposal
contravened Policy HE2 of the Local Plan;
- Disappointed that the
Conservation Officer was not present at the meeting;
- The site was to be
over developed contrary to Policy SD4
- Appropriate housing
was required, a block of flats was not acceptable;
- The application
should be deferred as there was an opportunity to progress in an
appropriate fashion and have proactive discussions with the
developer in regard to the design of the site;
- In relation to the
provision of car parking there was not enough information to make a
decision.
Following the debate members
resolved to refuse planning permission for the following
reasons:-
- The proposal due to
the inclusion of an apartment block would result in overdevelopment
of the site contrary to part j of policy SD4 of the Redcar and
Cleveland Local Plan.
- The proposal due to
the scale and location of the apartment block would result in an
adverse impact on the setting of the Grade II Listed War Memorial.
The proposal is therefore contrary to part f of policy HE2 of the
Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan.
At this point Councillor
Thomson left the meeting.