Issue - meetings

A site visit was held in respect of this item on 6^th November 2017 minute 80 (2017/2018) refers.

Under the scheme of public participation, Richard Kirkman, George Long and Julia Harris all spoke against the application. Andrew Tait agent for the application spoke in support and Ward Councillor Anne Whitehead spoke finally against the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Dave Brookes and seconded by Councillor Eileen Blamire:

“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, this application would have an unacceptable impact on the key urban landscape and the woodland opportunity site. There was also concern for overdevelopment of the site.

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

1.      The proposal would damage and unacceptably compromise the setting and character of the Key Urban Landscape, and it is considered that the development will not help preserve the open nature of the area, as this would be lost owing to the form of built development across the site.  Additionally, the development prejudices the establishment of a genuine belt of new woodland planting due to the over-developed nature of the site and the proximity of the proposed development to the boundary with the motorway.  The development is therefore contrary to Policies DM28, DM35 and DM41 of the Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD); Saved Policies E27 and E31 of the Lancaster District Local Plan and Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.      It is considered that the development fails to make a positive contribution to the area due to the over-developed nature of the site and the quantum of development, which is considered excessive for this challenging parcel of land.  In this regard the proposal departs from the pre-application advice of officers, and therefore the scheme would fail to conform to Policy DM35 of the Development Management DPD, Policy SC5 of the Core Strategy, and Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.