PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA - Hartlepool Borough Council

4.1
11) Application and appeal turned down on Briarfields site adjacent.
12) Increased traffic congestion/hazards on an already congested and
hazardous road.
13) Development is not needed given recent approvals at Tunstall Court.
2.10 Those writing in support of the application (13) have raise the following issues:
1) The new application more carefully considers the character of the area and
the impact on the privacy of existing dwellings.
2) The proposal for two mansion blocks is In keeping with the style of
surrounding buildings.
3) Excellent development will allow existing residents to downsize freeing up
larger properties in the area.
4) Will increase choice of properties in area.
5) Shortage of this type of high quality accommodation.
6) Will be appropriate and beneficial use of garden area.
7) Better and more economical than building more large detached properties
as proposed at Briarfields.
8) In accordance with government guidance.
9) Will be an asset to the town.
10) Development allowed to north overlooking Shu Lin. Hedge will be
maintained. Building line shouldn’t be determined by English Heritage.
Footpath to south is at lower level. Views south are screened by trees.
2.11 One person makes the following observations:
1) Developments in the area piecemeal, no overall planning (for
services,access,TPO’s) needs to be planned for along with other
development proposed in the area.
2.12 Following discussions the proposals have been amended. The amended
drawings were advertised by neighbour notification (40). Seven letters of objection,
eight letters of no objection and two letters of support were received.
2.13 The objectors raise similar issues to those identified in the relevant section
above and the following additional points:
1) Site will be visible from listed buildings (Meadowcroft/Meadowside).
2) The modern development to the north far from justifying the development
is a powerful reason to refuse it for reasons of precedent.
3) Disagree in principle with development in gardens which has a detrimental
affect, and ultimately will result in a lack of quality housing in reasonable
surroundings.
2.14 Those writing in support of the application(2) raise similar issues to those
identified in the relevant section above. One makes the additional point that the new
proposal offers even better opportunities for the enjoyment and privacy of the
surrounding area without adversely affecting the neighbouring houses.
W:\CSword\Democratic Ser vices\COMMITTEES\PLANNING CTTEE\R eports \Reports - 2006-2007\ 06. 09. 27\4. 1 PlanCtt ee
27. 09. 06 Planning apps.DOC 8