PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA - Hartlepool Borough Council

Planning Committee – 25 th February 2009 4.1
spaces at the front of the property. However it is of note that the protected tree to the
front of the building would constrain the provision of 4 spaces within the curtilage and
as such there is only scope for 3. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has confirmed
that he would object to any proposed removal of this tree given its significant amenity
value in both the streetscene and the conservation area as a whole.
9.21 The section of Hutton Avenue immediately outside the applicants property and
to the east is covered by the Councils Residential Parking Schemes whilst a
substantial section of road to the west has recently been removed from the scheme.
9.22 The Highway Engineer has commented that under the Council’s residential
parking scheme the owner can claim 1 permit for living at the premises plus 1
concessionary permit for visitors and 2 business permits which has been confirmed
by the Councils Car Parking Manager. On this basis there is scope for adequate
parking arrangements associated with the proposed use.
9.23 The officer has also requested that the applicant make provision for the parking
of at least 2 cycles which must be secure and covered. It is considered that there is
scope to provide such a shelter within the curtilage of the site and in a position which
would not compromise the visual amenity value of the conservation area. A planning
condition has been suggested to secure such cycle provision.
9.24 The Officer has requested that a widened carriage crossing be provided for
vehicles to access/park at the property before the proposed use comes into
operation. This can be secured and enforced through a planning condition. In
relation to an objector’s comments with regard to a widened carriage crossing
compromising the future re-instatement of wall and railing details. In this instance
the frontage is currently used as hardstanding for the parking of cars. It is not
considered reasonable to require the provision of traditional walls and railings.
Carriage crossing widths and parking provision would be reconsidered should the
bed and breakfast use cease operating and an application for an alternative use be
submitted.
9.25 Given the comments of the Council Head of Traffic and Transportation it is not
considered that a refusal could be sustained upon traffic generation, parking
congestion or highway safety grounds in this instance.
Residential Amenity
9.26 It is acknowledged that the amount of associated comings going to a 10 bed
Bed and Breakfast guest house would be higher than a single dwellinghouse. It is of
note however that this and the adjoining property have been in use as 6 flats/bedsits
each in the past.
9.27 The Head of Public Protection has raised no objection to the proposed use
subject to a number of conditions. The officer considers it necessary to require an
investigation into the thickness of the party wall to establish whether or not further
noise insulation measure will be required. In addition the Officer has requested that
the use should be managed/member of staff be present at the premises at all times
in the interests of monitoring/supervising guests.
4.1 Planning 25.02.09 Pl anning apps 53