Agenda and minutes

Planning & Development Committee
Thursday, 28th February, 2013 1.00 pm

Venue: Town Hall, Scarborough

Contact: Anne Smith 

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 21 KB

Members are reminded of the need to consider whether they have a personal, prejudicial or pecuniary interest to declare in any of the items on this agenda.  If so, the nature of the interest must be declared at the start or as soon as the interest becomes apparent, of the meeting.  In addition, the attached form must be completed and passed to the Committee Administrator.  The Officers will be pleased to advise, if necessary, and any request for assistance should be made, in the first instance, to the Committee Administrator whose name appears at the end of this agenda.  Ideally, such advice should be sought before the day of the meeting so that time is available to consider any uncertainty that might arise.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

 

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 81 KB

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 17 January 2013 and 28 January 2013.  (Minutes attached).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

In respect of the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 January 2013, under Item 6, Councillor Watson had asked that his objection to dropping children off in the car park, in the final sentence of the deliberation, be attributed to him personally and this was agreed.

RESOLVED that, subject to the above amendment, the Minutes of the meetings held on 17 January 2013 and 28 January 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

3.

Public Question Time

Public questions of which due notice has been given and which are relevant to the business of the Committee.

Minutes:

The Chair reported that no public questions had been received.

 

4.

Planning Application (12/02566/FL) - Part OS Field No. 1101, Broad Ings Farm, Guisborough Road, Whitby pdf icon PDF 126 KB

To consider:

i)          a planning application for use of land as a touring caravan site including an extension of the approved site to accommodate a maximum of 20 caravans, for Mr and Mrs David Morley; and

ii)         a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/86) attached.

View Plans and Documents

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered:

i)          a planning application for use of land as a touring caravan site including an extension of the approved site to accommodate a maximum of 20 caravans, for Mr and Mrs David Morley; and

ii)         a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/86).

The Planning Officer advised that additional planting at the south western corner of the site would result in better screening and suggested that an additional condition be included to address this.

Members supported the application and commented that this was an unobtrusive site.  A Member asked about the restriction of use between 1 March and 31 October and was informed that this was the licence which had been applied for.  The Chair was very concerned that the size of the site, which had been given temporary approval, had been doubled during construction.  In this instance she had no objection to the application but this may not always be the case.  One Member welcomed the proposed additional planting including leylandii which would grow quickly to screen the site and another suggested a mix of planting including native species.  The Planning Manager confirmed that native species were preferred but leylandii could be useful in some instances and she did not consider that approval of the extended site would set a precedent.

RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions and additional condition agreed at the meeting:-

1          Not more than twenty touring caravans shall be sited on the land at any one time and at no time shall the land be used to site static caravans without the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority.       

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with Policy L6 of the adopted Scarborough Borough Local Plan.

2          Caravans may be located on the site only during the period 1 March and 31 October in any calendar year.

Reason: To preclude permanent occupation and to comply with Policy L6 of the adopted Scarborough Borough Local Plan

3          The touring caravans shall be used for holiday purposes only and shall not be used as the main residence of any occupant.

Reason: To comply with Policy E1 of the adopted Scarborough Borough Local Plan

4          The existing boundary hedges on the site shall be retained and maintained by the owner(s) of the site to a height of 2-3m. In the event of the existing hedgerows being removed or dying, they shall be replaced to a specification that shall first have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The new hedge row plants shall be maintained by the owner(s) of the land on which they are situated for the period of five years beginning with the date of implementation of this permission and during that period all losses shall be made good as and when necessary, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

5          Before the 6  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Planning Application (13/00088/FL) - East Row Surgery, East Row, Sandsend pdf icon PDF 134 KB

To consider:

i)          a planning application for demolition of existing single storey surgery and construction of new surgery with 2 storey dwelling, for Dr and Mrs Ian Suckling; and

ii)         a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/87) attached.

View Plans and Documents

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered:

i)          a planning application for demolition of existing single storey surgery and construction of new surgery with 2 storey dwelling, for Dr and Mrs Ian Suckling; and

ii)         a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/87).

The Planning Officer advised that Highways had recommended conditions relating to adequate surface water drainage; requiring the crossing to accord with specifications and provision of an adequate visibility splay.  Yorkshire Water had no comments.  The Countryside Officer noted condition 5.  A small petition in support of the application had been received from Mr and Mrs Hodgson of Rose Cottage, Mr and Mrs Norton of Hazelwood, Mr Wilson, The Beach Hotel and Mr Jameson of Sandsend Court, all in Sandsend.  Additional information had been provided in connection with affordable housing with a revised Affordable Housing statement which indicated that Dr and Mrs Suckling were selling their existing home to finance the project and intended to relocate to the proposed house above the surgery.   Dr Suckling would make a considerable investment on upgrading the surgery facilities and he had already invested a sizeable sum of money looking at an alternative site in the village which did not come to fruition.  Having regard to the financial investment in the community facility and potential increased employment the applicant had requested that the housing contribution be waived.  Officers considered that, rather than waiving the contribution entirely it could be appropriate to link occupancy of the dwelling to the doctors or staff employed at the surgery.  The Council would be able to consider whether a contribution towards affordable housing was appropriate in future if the applicants wished to remove the occupancy restriction, as planning permission would be required.  Dr Suckling had advised that he agreed to the occupancy clause and an additional condition was to be added if Members granted permission.

A Member asked where the zinc cladding would be used and was informed that this would be to the rear and side of the pavilion structure to afford privacy from existing houses and those currently under construction on the Boatyard site.  The Member referred to paragraph 6.11 and noted the comments regarding bats but had concerns about house martins which were in serious decline and asked about mitigation measures.  Another Member asked for clarification on the ridge heights and this was given.  Some Members welcomed the contemporary design whilst others had reservations.  A Member asked about parking for the surgery and was informed that none was currently provided or proposed.  Visitors to the surgery tended to park on the road to the rear of the surgery.  The Planning Manager informed Members that bats were protected but house martins were not and the Chair suggested that the informative on condition 5 could be amended. 

RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, subject to the consideration of outstanding consultations, and the following conditions and additional conditions agreed at the meeting:-

1          The development hereby granted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted plans unless  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 125 KB

To consider a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/92) attached.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/92) which provided details of current planning appeals lodged against decisions made since 1 January 2013 and outstanding appeals at that date.  It had been agreed that a regular report would be provided for Members.  Once the Appeal decision had been finalised and reported to Members it would be removed from the report.  Due to technical issues the links had not worked properly but it was hoped that these issues would be resolved for future reports.  The Planning Manager commented on the appeal decision APLC/00014/12 on West Garth, Cayton, and informed Members that an application for £25,000 costs had been received.  Officers considered this to be excessive and were in negotiations to reduce the costs.  The report contained a large number of appeals which Members may have questions about and the Planning Manager asked Members to raise their concerns with Officers before the meeting in future to allow time to prepare answers.

A Member asked whether the report included all outstanding appeals and this was confirmed.  A Member asked what percentage of decisions resulted in appeals and was informed that this information could be obtained and included in the June committee report as this would give the six monthly figure.  The Member also asked that the statistics include a breakdown of Member and delegated decisions. 

A Member asked what the costs would be for the Public Inquiries and was informed that it would be difficult to estimate.  The Council may need to instruct a barrister and noise consultant.  Officers would need to consider who would deal with the appeal and may need to engage a consultant.  The Chair commented that she was surprised to see the Rugby Club as a Public Inquiry as it was a minor decision and 50% had been granted just the music and jingles having been refused.  The Planning Inspector had wanted a hearing but the Rugby Club asked for a Public Inquiry.  A Member asked who made the decision and was informed that this was the Inspectorate.    

RESOLVED that the report be received and planning appeals be noted.

 

7.

Window Replacement Guidance pdf icon PDF 196 KB

To consider a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/70) attached.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/70) which set out proposed amendments to the Window Replacement Guide and sought Member approval.  Members were reminded that this was Guidance rather than Policy and national and local policies remained in place. 

A Member asked about like for like door or window replacement where permitted development rights had been removed and was informed that planning permission would not be required for non-listed buildings.  The Planning Manager suggested that the Guidance could be amended to clarify this point.  A Member suggested that the Guidance be circulated to double glazing and joinery firms in the area so that they were aware of the planning requirements and this was the intention.   The Planning Manager asked for delegated authority to include the specifications for the window types for Conservation Areas so these could be taken along to firms to see whether they were able to produce what was required.  A Member commented that uPVC windows could be preferable to badly maintained wooded windows in some cases and asked what the price difference was between uPVC and wooden double glazed units.  The Conservation Officer advised that, in his experience, there was very little difference in the cost but it would depend on the firm involved.   A Member referred to the final sentence of paragraph 5.2 of the report and asked for clarification.  She referred to an instance where side and rear windows had been replaced in a basement flat in the Conservation Area and asked whether front windows could be replaced.  The Planning Manager advised that whilst she could not advise on individual properties, enquiries could be made with Planning and a fee of £25 may be required.  It was important to note that we do not have a blanket ban on uPVC in Conservation Areas but they had to be appropriate.  Another Member asked whether building owners could be provided with a list of available firms; whether national policy applied in relation to Listed Buildings; and suggested that references to thermal upgrading required clarification.  The Conservation Officer had intended to expand on thermal upgrading and agreed to amend the Guidance to refer to perimeter sealing systems; he advised that Listed Buildings were subject to national policy and he did not think it appropriate to provide details of specific firms except where specialist advice was needed.   The Chair assured Members that local firms would be provided with a copy of the finalised Guidance and she would hope that this would be uploaded to websites.  A Member voiced concerns that the message about replacement windows was not getting across and stressed the need for firm and timely enforcement action.   The Planning Manager advised that the Guidance was designed to help the public and officers.  The Guidance would be publicised which would raise awareness..  

RESOLVED that the Guidance set out in the Annex to the report, be adopted.

Reason: The Guidance for the replacement of doors and windows is designed to assist applicants who may  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Character Appraisal, Management Proposals and Conservation Area Boundary Review - Whitby pdf icon PDF 149 KB

To consider a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/62) attached.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/62) which set out details of the proposed consultation with the public, Town Council, Civic Society and interested parties on the draft Character Appraisal and Management Plan for the Whitby Conservation Area.  The proposal was to enlarge the Conservation Area by including the area around the Spa and gardens on the cliff top; western side of Chubb Hill and Downdinner Hill/Arundel Place/Southend Gardens area; the Esk and Windsor Terrace area including the former engine shed; the Spital Bridge and Whitehall areas and part of a field on Abbey Plain to ensure that the Heritage Coast and Conservation Area boundaries were coterminous.   The following areas were proposed for removal:  the area including the hospital, police station, telephone exchange and library; the gardens and relatively new development on Pannet Way and Meadow Fields Court and a small area on Crescent Avenue/St Hilda’s Gardens.  Public consultation would include property owners in areas to be included or removed from the Conservation Area.  The Chair asked that copies of the maps and documents be placed in the Members room.  A Member asked whether the former council offices at Eskholme, Upgang Lane, were included in the document. The Conservation Officer thought they were included as a building of local interest and agreed to check the list and add the building if necessary.  Members thanked the Conservation Officer for his work on this report and the accompanying documents.

RESOLVED that consultation with the public, the Town Council, Civic Society and other interested parties be carried out on the draft Character Appraisal and Management Plan and that a further report be brought back to this Committee and Cabinet.

Reason: Whitby has previously been recognised as having special architectural and historic qualities, which it is desirable to preserve or enhance and which resulted in the designation of a Conservation Area in 1973.  There has been no subsequent formal Character Appraisal of the whole area or review of the boundaries since 1973, although partial Management reviews have taken place through the Conservation Area Action Plan 1995, Conservation Area Action Plan 1998 and the Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme Implementation Plan 2001.  The Character Appraisal and Management Plan which sets out a framework for establishing policies for ensuring the qualities of the area are so preserved has been prepared and is at first draft stage. The recommendation is for formal consultation to be carried out on this first draft. Following consultation, a final draft of the Character Appraisal and Management Plan, along with recommendations for boundary changes, will be brought back to this committee for recommendation on to Cabinet.

 

9.

Heritage Assets at Risk in the Local Planning Authority Area pdf icon PDF 165 KB

To consider a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/63) attached.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Planning Manager (Reference 13/63) which provided Members with information about Designated Heritage Assets (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) At Risk within the Local Planning Authority area.  Members were also shown photographs of various locations and provided with details of the current situation.  Members welcomed the excellent report and commented on the work being done to restore buildings At Risk.  A Member commented on the work being done by the Friends of Dean Road/Manor Road Cemetery and advised that he would place a copy of the educational pack, which they had produced, in the Members Room.  A Member asked whether Whitby Station still had an engine turntable and the Conservation Officer (CO) advised that he had not seen one.  Another Member asked about enforcement in respect of North Marine Road and was informed that the CO would make enquiries with the Enforcement Officer.

RESOLVED that the report be received.

 

At the end of the Meeting the Chair informed Members that this was the last meeting Chris Hall, the Conservation Officer, would be attending and she thanked him for his invaluable help over the years and wished him all the best for the future.