Issue - meetings
Higher Bond Gate, Abbeystead Road, Dolphinholme
Meeting: 03/04/2017 - Planning Regulatory Committee (Item 158)
158 Higher Bond Gate, Abbeystead Road, Dolphinholme 
PDF 327 KB
Outline application for the erection of up to
49 dwellings, 1 shop unit (A1) and provision of an underground foul
pumping station with creation of a new vehicular access point,
public footpath and associated landscaping for Mr & Mrs D
Wallbank
Minutes:
|
16/01599/OUT |
Outline application for the erection of up to 49 dwellings, 1 shop unit (A1) and provision of an underground foul pumping station with creation of a new vehicular access point, public footpath and associated landscaping for Mr & Mrs D Wallbank |
Ellel Ward |
R |
A site visit was held in respect of this item on 27th March 2017 minute 156 (2016/2017) refers.
Under the scheme of public participation, Suzette Heald representative for Dolphinholme Resident’s Association, Rosalind Hargreaves, Roy Appleton and Ian Wallace all spoke against the application. Graham Salisbury agent for the application spoke in support.
It was proposed by Councillor Robert Redfern and seconded by Councillor Claire Cozler:
“That the application be refused.”
Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.
Resolved:
|
That Outline Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:
|
|
|
1. |
The development is not well related to the existing scale and character of Dolphinholme, and is considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and quality of the landscape; the intrinsic character of the rural landscape and settlement would be lost. The development therefore is not seen as a sustainable or suitable extension to the village, and thus fails to adhere to Policies DM28, DM35, DM41, and DM42 of the Development Management DPD, saved Policy E4 of the Lancaster District Local Plan, Policy SC1 of the Lancaster Core Strategy and Paragraphs 7 and 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
|
|
2. |
The proposed development by virtue of its location and access to services renders the site unattractive to walk and travel by other sustainable means of transport between workplaces, shops, schools, health care centres, recreation, leisure and community facilities and therefore it is not considered the proposal represents sustainable development and fails to conform to Policy SC1 of the Lancaster Core Strategy, Policies DM20, DM21, DM28, DM35 and DM42 of the Development Management DPD, and Paragraphs 7 and 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
|