Prism Planning are delighted to announce that the High Tunstall housing development of 1200 homes has at long last been granted outline planning permission, subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement. This represents the largest housing development approved in the Tees Valley in recent years.
The proposals were brought forward in 2014, when Tunstall Homes proposed a detailed masterplan, including a new distributor road, local centre, primary school, amenity open space and structure planting. The scheme was one of the largest in the North East and required an Environmental Impact Assessment under current European legislation.
The original masterplan included provision of 2,000 new homes, but following the two-stage public consultation by Results Communications Ltd, and continual dialogue between the client, Tunstall Homes, and Prism Planning with Hartlepool Borough Council, the planning application was submitted for consideration the same year.
Rod Hepplewhite, one of the directors of Prism Planning, which operates nationwide, said the approved application represents the changes in market conditions, and the benefits of adopting a considered approach through early engagement with stakeholders.
“The application, accompanied by a detailed masterplan, originally sought permission for 2,000 homes on a larger area of land but as the towns housing needs reduced, so did the scheme.
“As might be expected of a development of this size and on a greenfield site on the edge of town, the application raised a number of issues, not least the scale of development proposed and proposed access arrangements. We have been working closely with the client and stakeholders to ensure that what was proposed will be of benefit to Hartlepool, as well as the surrounding area.”
The approved scheme will lead to a variety of much needed improvements to the A19, helping to close off a number of dangerous junctions, as well as leading to the start of Hartlepool’s western by-pass, which will significantly help traffic flows across the town.
Hartlepool Borough Council’s Planning Committee resolved to accept the officer recommendation for approval of the planning application for land south of Elwick Road in High Tunstall.
The scheme represents a new record for Prism Planning, which deals with applications for small, one-off developments as well as large masterplanned, multi-use developments.
The proposal was designed to not only meet the housing demand in Hartlepool but to provide community facilities for residents expected to move into the new homes.
Prism Planning had a good day at Hambleton Planning Committee yesterday, having gained planning permission for 3 new bungalows on a parcel of land at Tanton, just outside Stokesley. The site was outside the limits to development but officers accepted that the site had good access to the nearby market town of Stokelsey, was on a frequent bus route and was therefore in a sustainable location. The scheme proposed 3 new bungalows, in keeping with the surrounding development and members welcomed this type of housing which is much needed in the district.
Prism Planning had worked with the Council prior to the submission of the application to get the principle agreed with officers, smoothing the passage of the eventual application. Although this proposal was contrary to the Local Plan, being outside the defined limits to development, the Council have very pragmatically introduced flexible approaches to the delivery of housing in sustainable areas. In this respect, Hambleton are leading the way and responding positively to the current hosing crisis in this respect at least.
Our client will now look to dispose of the site so any interested parties looking to acquire a small site in the area should contact Prism Planning.
At their meeting of 21st February 2017, Sunderland’s Development Control (Sunderland South) Sub-Committee voted by a significant majority in favour of our client’s development of a part brownfield site within the urban area for a residential development comprising affordable housing, low cost housing and supported housing for people with learning difficulties.
At face value, you may have thought the application would sail through: a development of social housing on a brownfield site within the urban area, a residential area at that, and the brownfield part of the site was Council owned and was to be sold to our clients subject to planning permission being granted. How wrong you would have been.
The application, was recommended for approval at the meeting of 3rd January. However, the application faced stiff opposition from local residents and a Ward Councillor who attended the meeting and spoke against the application. At this point it was looking likely that the application would be refused. Thankfully, our Director, Rod Hepplewhite, also attended the meeting to speak in support of the application and was able to address the issues raised by the objectors. The Committee then decided to defer a decision to allow for the issues raised to be fully explored before the application was reported back to them.
Revisions were subsequently made to the proposals and additional information was provided, which addressed all of the issues that had been raised. When the application was reported back to Committee, again with a recommendation for approval, the objectors spoke again as did our Director, Rod Hepplewhite. He was able to advise that all issues previously raised had now been addressed, as evidenced by the officer report and the recommendation that that the proposed development be approved. In this instance the Planning Committee accepted our argument and by a significant majority voted in favour of granting planning permission. Our clients and the architect for the scheme http://www.bsbaarchitects.com
who also attended the meeting were delighted with the outcome.
We have dealt with many applications for residential development of various forms. We have built up a good level of expertise on the subject and recognise that no two developments are the same and have learnt to be prepared for the unexpected. Notably, just because and application is recommended for approval doesn’t necessarily mean that the Planning Committee will grant planning permission. You should be represented at the Planning Committee meeting as we are aware of cases where only objectors speak and in the absence of the applicant being represented Planning Committee refuses planning permission. A subsequent planning appeal may succeed but that adds additional expense to the project as well as a significant time delay, both of which could have been avoided.
Durham Planning Committee voted unanimously today to support the demolition of St Anne’s School, next to the cricket ground in Bishop Auckland. The scheme involves 18 new houses on the site. Prism Planning led the team that were behind the scheme which was described as a bitter-sweet moment by a member of the committee. Bitter because the town was losing an old building which had been part of the town heritage for many years but sweet because it was going to be replaced by a new set of quality buildings made from materials salvaged from the old structure.
The owner had bought the buildings after they were severely damaged by an arson attack. He wanted to convert the existing structure but this proved to be financially un-viable. The scheme approved had been carefully worked up by Prism and the design team over many months of close partnership working with the Council. It was supported by the local councillors, the Town Council and the local Cricket Club who abut the site.
It’s not very often that a planning committee commend you for a scheme that involves losing an old building in a Conservation Area but the fact that they did is testament to all of the hard work we put into the proving it was the only way forward, as well as having an excellent scheme to go back on the site.
Work can now start on relocating bats from the site, subject to the separate go-ahead from Natural England.
Hot food takeaway applications can be contentious and applications to extend open hours more so. Applications become more difficult when the planning history of the premises is one of the original application being refused by the Council but allowed on appeal and then subsequent applications to allow opening on Sundays and Bank Holidays (prohibited by the condition imposed by the planning appeal decision) being refused and the refusal upheld at appeal.
That was the scenario we faced but with a carefully presented case we were able to convince the planning officer to recommend that the permitted opening hours be extended to allow opening on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
First hurdle successfully negotiated but due to the number of objections received the application was reported to Stockton’s Planning Committee yesterday afternoon (15th June). Rod Hepplewhite of Prism Planning attended the meeting and spoke in support of the application, advising the Committee that national planning policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework of 2012, had shifted significantly with the government advising that greater emphasis should be placed on economic considerations. He further advised that since the previous decisions pre-dated the NPPF, they could and should be set aside and there was good reason to approve the application.
Members of the Planning Committee clearly listened carefully to the case put forward by Prism Planning and the Council’s planning officer as to why extended opening hours should be allowed in this instance and approved the application unanimously apart from one abstention.
Another success achieved for a client by Prism Planning through a carefully prepared and present case. Indeed, we at Prism Planning see ourselves as the North East’s planning problem solvers. A successful outcome is not always possible but when presented with a proposal we will give an honest summation of the prospects of success we foresee. If you think we could assist you with a planning issue, we’re only a phone call or an e-mail away.
Stockton Council have just decided to grant consent for a scheme submitted by Prism Planning which sought consent for 40 one and two bedroom apartments on a site in the centre of Ingleby Barwick.
Consent had previously been granted at appeal for a scheme on the same site that was restricted by a planning condition to only be occupied by the over 55’s. Because of the conditions imposed, the scheme was not attractive to the market and lending institutions during these challenging times.
Prism Planning presented an alternative scheme to the Council which provided for a mix of one and two bedroomed apartments for sale, based upon a different financial model and argued against the imposition of any restrictive occupancy condition. Accurate information on scheme build cost and viability was also submitted, to demonstrate to the authority that the scheme could not afford to contribute towards all the off-site affordable housing that the Council sought.
The scheme was passed by a majority vote on the planning committee, subject to a legal agreement relating to the transfer of land for public open space and a reduced commuted sum towards the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in the borough.
It is increasingly the case that viability assessments are becoming a key component of any planning application of significance and this scheme showed the value in presenting a clear business case to the planning authority. Without this, the scheme would have been subject to punitive costs that would have held the scheme back.
If you have a scheme where viability is an issue, talk to Prism to see whether we might be able to help.
On 26th November we were successful is securing a new outline planning permission for housing development of 46 houses on the edge of a village within Redcar & Cleveland, but not without a fight. We had been successful in obtaining the original permission in September 2013, granted for a shorted two year period, on the basis that the Council did not have a 5 year housing land supply and that on every other account the proposed development was acceptable. Unfortunately, our client had been unable to sell the site and instructed us to submit a second application shortly before the original expired.
In the meantime circumstances changed insofar as the Council now consider that they can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and that housing policies could now be taken into account when considering the second application. We were advised that on the basis that the site lies outside of the village development limits the application was likely to be refused. This came as rather disappointing but not totally unexpected news. All was not lost, however.
As it stood, the application was a delegated matter and could have been refused by officers without reference to Planning Committee. We believed that we would have a reasonable chance of securing planning permission if the application was considered by the Council’s Planning Committee but we needed to have it referred there first. There were two opportunities: our client could speak with his local Councillors and ask if one of them would exercise their right to have the application referred to Committee; and/or speak with those residents who had supported the original application and ask them to write in again to express their support for the new application. These tactics worked on both accounts, a local councillor who had supported the original application asked that the application be decided by the Planning Committee and registered to speak in support of the application and a sufficient number of letters of support were subsequently submitted to the Council that would have triggered referral to Committee in any case.
So far, so good. We now faced the task of convincing Members of the Planning Committee to over-turn the officer recommendation for refusal and approve the application. We were helped by the local councillor speaking in support of the application. Our Director, Rod Hepplewhite, then addressed the meeting arguing that the benefits of the proposed housing far outweighed the single issue that the site lies outside the village limits and that the application should be refused on this basis given that the Council can now demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. Thankfully, our case was listened to and one by one Committee Members voiced their support for the development, saying that it had been acknowledged that there were no technical grounds for refusal and that no convincing argument had been put forward by officers why the application should be refused. The application was approved unanimously, which came as a massive relief to our client and was very pleasing for Prism Planning.
We at Prism Planning like to see ourselves as the North East’s planning problem solvers. If you think we could assist you with a planning issue, we’re only a phone call or an e-mail away.
Prism Planning has secured a positive end to a long running saga over 2 proposed wind turbines in County Durham. The application, on land near to Fishburn International Airport, had been the subject of concerns from Durham Tees Valley Airport (DTVA) over the potential impact of the turbines on the operation of their air traffic control radar.
Over several years various attempts were made to resolve the problems at DTVA which also affected several other schemes and projects around the County. During this time, wind power also fell out of favour with the current government who have introduced a series of obstacles across the commercial and planning worlds to try and prevent on shore wind power from coming forward.
Notwithstanding those obstacles, Durham County Council agreed with Prism that this scheme was one of the few remaining proposals that involved proposed turbines being located in the right area and recommended that consent be granted. Our Managing Director spoke at the planning meeting and after a long debate, the committee voted in favour of the scheme, to the surprise and relief of our clients!
A special meeting of Ryedale Planning Committee last night approved a planning application Prism Planning submitted to improve the efficiency of the Anaerobic Digestion plant under construction at Sand Hutton to enable it to inject additional biogas into the local network. There was strong local interest in the application, following the recent successful appeal submitted by Prism and this resulted in a special meeting being convened, solely to consider this proposal.
Following the initial appeal, technical work carried out with the network operator established a greater capacity in the local gas network than previously established. The approved plant would be able to bridge the gap with only a modest increase in the feedstock going in.
By a majority vote, the committee accepted the officer’s recommendation to support the scheme, despite concerns being expressed by some local residents. The application we presented clearly put forward the argument that our client was entitled to grow the extra crop on the farm and that there would be no increase in smell or noises as a result of the proposal. The crop would not need to go onto the local highway network so there were no traffic implications.
It’s slightly bizarre that some local residents remained implacably opposed to the idea of generating renewable energy on their doorstep and some very misleading allegations about the possible impacts of the development were put forward in an effort to try to mislead the planning committee. Fortunately, the submission we had put forward clearly highlighted the proper planning considerations and the planning committee, after due deliberation, gave consent for the amendment.
We recently attended Durham County Council’s Planning Committee (Central & East) to speak on behalf of a client in support of his application for a single house on a former allotment plot in Easington Colliery.
The application was recommended for approval and our client had been offered the opportunity of speaking at the meeting. Due to other commitments our client was unable to attend the meeting and his architectural designer, who had prepared and submitted the application, was hesitant about speaking at the meeting.
Our advice was sought; should our client be represented at the meeting and if so could we attend the meeting and speak in support of the application. We advised that it is always best that someone speaks in support of an application, even when the officer recommendation is for approval, otherwise you run the risk of objectors speaking and without the applicant being represented the Committee may show favour to the objectors and refuse the application against officer recommendation.
As it turned out the advice we gave our client was opportune as the application reported before ours also referred to a site in Easington Lane, was highly controversial and a lot of local residents attended the meeting at County Hall and one of their local Councillors (not a Planning Committee Member) spoke on their behalf and spoke very well. The same Councillor then spoke against our application. We then had the opportunity to speak in support of the proposal and the officer recommendation. Thankfully, when taken to the vote a majority of the Committee voted to approve the application and our client obtained the planning permission he sought. Would the same have happened had we not spoken in support of the proposal? We’ll never know but it’s better to be safe than sorry.
If you have a planning application about to go before Planning Committee and would like to seek advice we’re only a phone call or an e-mail away.