Agenda item

R/2022/0895/00M Outline application (some matters reserved) for residential development comprising 12 (No) dwellings and apartment block (16 apartments) (demolition of existing public house building) The Smiths Dock Inn Skippers Lane Normanby

Minutes:

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:-

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

 

Supporting documents: