Issue - meetings
23-25 North Road, Lancaster
Meeting: 13/11/2017 - Planning Regulatory Committee (Item 81)
81 23-25 North Road, Lancaster 
PDF 372 KB
Phased change of use and conversion of bar,
nightclub and shop (A1/A4) to student accommodation comprising 32
studios, one 3-bed, two 5-bed cluster flats (C3), four 7-bed, two
8-bed and one 9-bed cluster flats (sui generis) and gym area with
associated internal and external alterations, erection of two
2-storey rear extensions, associated landscaping and car parking
and Relevant Demolition of existing rear extensions (pursuant to
the removal of condition 18 on planning permission 16/00274/FUL to
remove the need to undertake pre-occupation noise
monitoring)
Minutes:
|
17/00770/RCN |
Phased change of use and conversion of bar, nightclub and shop (A1/A4) to student accommodation comprising 32 studios, one 3-bed, two 5-bed cluster flats (C3), four 7-bed, two 8-bed and one 9-bed cluster flats (sui generis) and gym area with associated internal and external alterations, erection of two 2-storey rear extensions, associated landscaping and carparking and Relevant Demolition of existing rear extensions (pursuant to the removal of condition 18 on planning permission 16/00274/FUL to remove the need to undertake pre-occupation noise monitoring) for Mr Trevor Bargh. |
Bulk Ward |
R |
Under the scheme of public participation, Councillor Lucy Atkinson, Councillor Sam Armstrong, Councillor Charlie Edwards, Councillor Nathan Burns, Joshua Woolf and Paul Morris all spoke against the application. Andrew Piatt representative for the applicant spoke in support and Ward Councillor Caroline Jackson spoke finally against the application.
It was proposed by Councillor Andrew Kay and seconded by Councillor Jon Barry:
“That the application be refused.”
(The proposal was contrary to the case officer’s recommendation that the application be approved).
Members clarified the reasons for the contrary proposal, being that, in the absence of acoustic testing mechanisms and explicit baseline noise data, there would be no safeguards in place to adequately protect residential amenity.
Upon being put to the vote, 11 Members voted in favour of the proposition with 3 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.
Resolved:
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
In the absence of acoustic testing mechanisms and explicit baseline noise data, there are no safeguards in place to adequately protect residential amenity and therefore it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies DM35 and DM46 of the Development Management DPD.