1 of 4
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF INGLEBY BARWICK PARISH COUNCIL, HELD AT ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI CHURCH CENTRE - MEETING ROOM, BARWICK WAY, INGLEBY BARWICK, ON MONDAY 10TH MAY 2004, COMMENCING AT 7.00 P.M.
Chairman: Councillor T.W. Bowman;
Vice-Chairman: Councillor Mrs I Machin;
Councillors: W. Feldon and R. Patterson;
Ward Councillor: Mrs J. Beaumont;
Clerk and Treasurer: Paula M. Hall;
1 Resident of Ingleby Barwick.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mrs S. Rouse.
234. CODE OF CONDUCT – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST.
No Interests were declared.
235. PLANNING APPLICATION No.’s 04/1030/FUL and 04/1039/LBC,
PROPOSAL: Conversion and Alteration of Public House to Create 1 no. Dwelling and the Erection of 13 no. Dwellinghouses Together with Associated Access Road and Landscaping and Improvements to Highway Including Demolition of Mill House and Partial Demolition of Leven House.
LOCATION: Cross Keys Public House, Leven Bank Road, Yarm.
The Parish Council considered all the information and plans provided in respect of planning application no.’s 04/1030/FUL and 04/1039/LBC.
RESOLVED that the Parish Council object to the planning applications and recommend that Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (S.B.C.) reject the proposal.
The following points to be raised to support the objection:
This area is designated in the Local Plan as ‘Green Wedge’, ‘Cleveland Community Forest’ and ‘Site of Nature Conservation Importance’ (EN7, EN14 and REC 8) and therefore the proposed development should not be permitted.
2 of 4
It is noted that The Tees Navigation Strategy highlights the Leven Valley as being an important ‘sensitive wildlife corridor’, which needs limited access/development. The Tees Valley Structure Plan Policy ENV 13 limits development extending into the countryside, policy ENV 12 protects character of historic buildings and their settings and further reinforcement of ‘Green Wedge’ protection (ENV 14).
The Parish Council has major concerns with regard to the road safety implications on both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, if the development is allowed to go ahead.
The Road Safety Audit provided by Bullen Consultants recommends the following:
- that consideration be given to combining the proposed access with Old Mill Lane;
- that consideration be given to erecting warning signs in advance of the site in both north and south directions stating that this section of the A1044 is an accident black spot;
- there is an existing bus-stop opposite the proposed access, a pedestrian refuge should be provided in proximity to the bus-stop and a formal footway provided on the western side to accommodate pedestrians. In addition advance warning signs should be considered stating ‘caution pedestrians crossing’, particularly on the north-bound carriageway prior to Leven Bridge.
The Parish Council notes that the above recommendations have not been included in the proposed highway improvements and would reinstate their previous comments that the Road Safety Audit recommends ‘accident black spot signs’ even after so-called improved conditions. It is noted that Old Mill Lane provides access to a disused campsite, which if re-opened would have a further impact on the traffic situation.
If development in the area was approved Leven Bridge would need to be widened to accommodate the increase in traffic and improve road safety.
Also, a footpath would need to be provided to allow pedestrian access to Yarm and Ingleby Barwick.
Arrangements for vehicular and pedestrian traffic would need to be in place while building work was in progress (school buses etc using the bank and children walking up the bank in bad weather).
3 of 4
Concerns are raised with regard to the issue of flooding and the Parish Council notes the Flood Risk Assessment Report provided by JBA Consulting. If any development in this area were allowed who would be responsible for informing prospective buyers of flood risks and responsibilities for maintaining river banks etc? Page 15 para 7.2.9 and 7.2.11.
The Parish Council would also note that there is no main sewer at the location. What would be provided if development was approved and what contingency plans would there be if the sewerage system fails?
The proposal to restore the Cross Keys building does not justify the over development of this site. A much smaller and more modest type of development covering the area behind the existing buildings and architecturally interesting would be a more in-keeping scheme and maybe within scope. The extent of the site coverage as submitted is inappropriate, totally out of character with the locality and as such should be refused.
236. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 04/0623/REM (A Further Chance to Comment) - Changes: Highway Amendments and Parking.
PROPOSAL: Reserved Matters Application for Residential Development
Comprising 24 no. Four Storey Flats, 30 no. Three Storey Flats and 68 no.
Dwellinghouses and Associated Roads, Parking and Landscaping.
LOCATION: Broom Park (southern part), Village 5, Ingleby Barwick.
The Parish Council considered all the information and plans provided in respect of planning application no. 04/0623/REM.
RESOLVED that the parish Council reiterates their objection to the proposal and include the following comments:
- There is no amenity space to give any ‘sense of community’ (PPG3);
- What is the density of the development? (PPG3);
- Note the number of houses, which exit from a cul-de-sac.
4 of 4
PROPOSAL: Erection of 20m High Telecommunications Tower with 6 NO. Antennae, Associated Equipment and Fenced Compound.
LOCATION: Thornaby Transco Depot, Thornaby Road, Thornaby.
The Parish Council considered all the information and plans provided in respect of planning application no. 04/1308/FUL.
PROPOSAL: Change of Use to Provide Off-Road Driving, Military Vehicle Activities and Associated Events for Corporate Hospitality Events and Team Building Courses.
LOCATION: Handley Cross, Leven Bank Road, Yarm.
The Parish Council considered all the information and plans provided in respect of planning application no. 04/0766/COU.
RESOLVED that the Parish Council raise the following concerns:
- this application needs careful consideration;
- the idea is good, but it is not a suitable development for this site;
- access/traffic issues;
- environment/country life issues;
- noise issues;
- protection of blue bells in the woodland area.