Hartlepool to rule on contentious housing bid

Hellens Investments’ plans for up to 210 homes at Queens Meadow are opposed by Tata Steel, with officer recommendation ahead of consideration siding with the Indian-owned business giant.

Hartlepool Development Corporation’s planning board will consider the plans on 10 November.

As set out in the officer report ahead of the meeting, the application site is around 26.7 acres located within Queens Meadow, south of the A689 Stockton Road, around 2km south of Hartlepool town centre.

Along with Stockton Road, the site is bound to the north by Blackford Nurseries garden centre and housing; to the west by predominantly employment uses at the Queens Meadow Business Park; and to the south and east by the operations of Tata and Liberty Pipes.

Tata’s case is that the land is allocated for employment use within Hartlepool’s Local Plan. Along with Tata, the area also includes Queens Meadow Business Park, the Durham Coast railway line and the A689.

The business park is in line for expansion – with Hellens itself as the applicant, hybrid plans were approved in April, granting outline permission for more than 670,000 sq ft of employment floorspace, along with full permission for an initial 14-building phase.

As the application is only in outline, a definitive housing mix is not specified, although as officers note, it is likely to comprise two- to four-bed housing, with apartment blocks along the eastern boundary.

Architect Corstorphine & Wrigfht is working with Hellens, with the professional team also featuring Tetra Tech, NJD, Wardell Armstrong and Coast Consulting.

As can be seen in the extensive documentation prepared ahead of the session, the project has undergone several design tweaks as the applicant team looks to come up with a site design that will mitigate the impact of the existing employment uses on incoming residents.

Regardless, planning officers have recommended the application be refused owing to concerns over the relationship between the proposed homes and neighbouring uses.

The case against states that were housing to be built, hundreds of new residents would arrive in an area shaped by industrial activity, major transport infrastructure and employment uses, creating “an entirely foreseeable conflict between future residential amenity expectations and the established character of the surrounding area”.

As with cases elsewhere, ranging from industrial sites to city centre apartments coming in to conflict with nightclubs, the “agent of change” principle is in play here.

Of particular concern is noise. The officer’s report identifies that 44% of the proposed homes would rely on residents keeping windows closed to achieve acceptable internal noise levels. This is despite a package of mitigation measures including acoustic fencing, landscaped bunds, specialist glazing and mechanical ventilation systems.

Although that isn’t entirely out of the question within planning rules, officers do make the point that this level of impact is likely to impact on residents’ enjoyment of their home life.

A Tata Steel spokesperson said: “This is not a debate about whether Hartlepool needs new homes. It is about whether this particular site represents an appropriate location for residential development.

“The site is surrounded by industrial and commercial uses, major transport infrastructure and established businesses. It has historically been identified as a location for employment and economic activity, not housing.

“The officer’s report concludes that almost half of the proposed homes would require windows to remain closed in order to achieve acceptable internal noise levels. That should raise serious questions about whether the development can provide the quality of environment future residents would reasonably expect.

“Good planning is about ensuring that the right development is delivered in the right location. The evidence in this case suggests that this is simply the wrong place for a large-scale residential development.”

The position from the council is that there is simply no need to reallocate the site. The “planning policy” section of the officer report said: “The Hartlepool Local Plan allocated land for enough homes up to 2031, build-out rates in Hartlepool have been healthy.

“In addition to the allocated sites, all of which are likely to come forward, the council have approved housing sites above and beyond the local plan allocation of 410 dwellings per year.”

Summing up, the officer report said: “Officers consider the case to be very finely balanced. However, in the absence of an unmet housing need, the potential impact upon the operations of an established commercial business is a significant material consideration which weighs against the approval of the application.”

Overall, said the report, the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable and refusal is thus recommended.

The application reference number is HMDC/2023/0031.