Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd August 2010 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Site visits were held in respect of the following application:

The following Members were present at the site visits, which took place on Monday, 13^th September 2010:

Councillors Eileen Blamire (Chairman), Joyce Pritchard (Vice-Chairman), John Day, Roger Dennison, Sheila Denwood, Mike Greenall, Helen Helme and Tony Johnson.

Officers in Attendance:

There were no items of urgent business.

Members were advised of the following declarations of interest:

Councillor Robinson declared a personal interest in A5 10/00676/VCN – Marlborough Road Garage, Marlborough Road, Heysham – being a member of the West End Partnership.

Councillor Kay declared a personal interest in A6 10/00656/FUL – Agricultural Building Field 1563, Wyresdale Road, Quernmore – being a friend of one of the objectors.

Councillor Johnson declared a personal interest in A7 10/00392/PLDC – 20 Browsholme Close, Carnforth – being a member of Carnforth Town Council Planning Committee.

Councillor Roe declared personal and prejudicial interests in A7 10/00392/PLDC – 20 Browsholme Close, Carnforth – having had dealings with local residents.

Councillor Day declared a personal interest in A8 09/01185/HS – Heysham Power Station, Princess Alexandra Way, Heysham – being a member of the Heysham Power Station Liaison Group.

Councillor Denwood declared a personal interest in A8 09/01185/HS – Heysham Power Station, Princess Alexandra Way, Heysham – being a member of the Heysham Power Station Liaison Group.

Councillor Greenall declared personal and prejudicial interests in A8 09/01185/HS – Heysham Power Station, Princess Alexandra Way, Heysham – being a British Energy employee.

Councillor Greenall declared personal and prejudicial interests in A9 10/00624/CU – Land at Mossgate Park Mossgate Park, Heysham – being a director of Heysham Mossgate (Community Facilities) Company Ltd.

Councillor Dennison declared personal and prejudicial interests in A14 10/00725/CU – 27 Regent Park Avenue, Morecambe – being a member of Morecambe Town Council, as was the applicant.

Councillor Greenall declared a personal interest in A14 10/00725/CU – 27 Regent Park Avenue, Morecambe – being a member of the MBI.

Councillor Roe declared a personal interest in A16 10/00541/FUL – Land at rear of 85-91 North Road, Carnforth – the application having come before Carnforth Town Council.

Councillor Johnson declared a personal interest in A16 10/00541/FUL – Land at rear of 85-91 North Road, Carnforth – being a member of Carnforth Town Council Planning Committee.

The Head of Planning Services submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications and his recommendations thereon.

Resolved:

(1)        That the applications be determined as indicated below (the numbers denote         the schedule numbers of the applications).

(2)        That, except where stated below, the applications be subject to the relevant           conditions and advice notes, as outlined in the Schedule.

(3)        That, except where stated below, the reasons for refusal be those as outlined        in the Schedule.

APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

It was noted that Councillor Johnson had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, being a member of Carnforth Town Council Planning Committee.

It was noted that Councillor Roe had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, having had dealings with local residents.

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Malcolm Kershaw spoke in objection to the application.)

Malcolm Kershaw spoke in objection to the application and advised Members that he lived in the vicinity and was retired.  He was speaking on behalf of himself and other residents and, whilst he had little knowledge of planning and Lawful Development Certificates, the number of neighbour representations in objection to the application should be considered   There was disquiet amongst residents regarding the development, which it was felt should be the subject of a planning application.  The issuing of a Lawful Development Certificate would deny the public the checks and balances required.  The applicant had not proved that the stables were incidental to the dwelling and therefore Class E permitted development rights did not apply.  This had been supported on many occasions at appeal when the inspector had been clear that equestrian use was not incidental to the residential use of a dwelling.  The applicant used the word ‘other’ on the application form, which did not fall into a user class.  The stables were commercial and not private and the applicant was a trainer and breeder, as listed in the local paper and indicated on the horsebox.  Horses were not pets and were linked with commercial equine activities.  The stables were not, therefore, incidental to the use of the dwellinghouse, being for commercial use.  Should this application have been a normal planning application, it would have been refused, and he asked that Members please do the same on this occasion and require that Planning Consent be required.

Members considered the application and the public representation.

It was proposed by Councillor Dennison and seconded by Councillor Day:

“That Planning Consent be required for the proposed works.”

Upon being put to the vote, 17 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Consent be required for the proposed works.

Variation of condition 17 on application no. 08/01129/FUL to allow the ground floor retail unit to sell convenience goods for Kempsten Ltd

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Tim Hamilton-Cox, Patricia Clarke and Matthew Wilson spoke in objection to the application.  Philip Robinson, agent for the applicant, spoke in support.)

Tim Hamilton-Cox spoke in objection to the application and informed Members that the case officer’s report did not provide a full analysis, for example it did not make reference to Tesco.  The layout plans submitted last month had indicated that the store would be smaller than Somerfield and half the size of Booths at Scotforth.  The proposal was aimed at top-up shopping and would have no beneficial impact.  The White Young Green report had said that a Tesco Express store could have a turnover of £3½ m.  He was concerned regarding the impact that Tesco would have on independent traders.  Other councils had rejected such applications on the basis of the impact they would have on town centres.  The report did not refer to the reasons for refusal in a previous application and was based on misleading representations from the applicant.  Members were asked to defer the application to allow a full analysis to be undertaken, and a highway safety audit and an air quality assessment to be carried out, as in a previous application.   The safety of pedestrians and cyclists had previously been considered and were still relevant, and he urged Members to have regard to them when considering this application.

Patricia Clarke, representing Dynamo, a local group promoting cycling as a means of transport, spoke in objection to the application and advised Members that the application made no provision for cycle parking.  The toucan crossing across King Street to Queen Square was welcomed.  Lancaster was a Cycling Demonstration Town and Dynamo wished to raise six points regarding the application, namely (1) The proposal did not make provision for a contra-flow lane; (2) The need for a contra-flow lane for cyclists travelling east to west; (3) Two cycle lanes had already been lost and a cycle contra-flow lane would offer some compensation, as did the toucan crossing; (4) alternative forms of transport were required and there was an absence of proposals; (5) the City Council was committed to cycling; and (6) the funding from Cycle England would run out shortly and this would be the last chance to request amended plans to improve the cycle contra-flow.

Matthew Wilson spoke in objection to the application and asked that the City Council use joined up thinking, referring to separate planning issues regarding Centros, the proposal regarding Lancaster Market in connection with the little-known supermarket, Asco, and the Booths supermarket development on the outskirts of Lancaster.  He advised Members that he had only learned of this application on Thursday of the previous week and felt that there had been a lack of public consultation.  He informed Committee that one large development would cancel  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Change of use of ground floor and first floor to further education college for EMBA College

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, David Titterington spoke in objection to the application.)

David Titterington of Court View House Residents’ Association spoke in objection to the application, and advised that the main areas of concern from the proposal were car parking, smoking and noise.  The apartments had been sold with the understanding that the space would be used as offices and a restaurant.  The college would bring a greater number of people into the area, with up to 175 people studying on-site at any one time, representing a significantly higher percentage than that generated by office or restaurant use.  County Highways had acknowledged that the proposal would add significantly to parking demand in the Moorlands area, and believed naively that the introduction of a ‘residents’ only’ parking scheme in the area of Moorlands would mitigate the problem.  Residents were concerned by the proposal and it was hoped that research had been undertaken to support County’s solution, as such a solution had not been found appropriate elsewhere.  The canalside was an open, quiet area at present, shielded by buildings, and the proposal would change this, with 175 people moving around on-site.  According to the Office for National Statistics, 30% of young people smoked, which meant that this percentage would be outside the building each day.  There would be a security issue posed by the proposal, and increased noise from students, especially at night.  Residents had been promised one thing, which was changed following their having made a financial commitment, and this would cast a shadow over further proposals for residential development in town.

Members considered the application and public representation.

It was proposed by Councillor Denwood and seconded by Councillor Marsland:

“That the application be deferred.”

Upon being put to the vote, 16 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be deferred to allow:

(1)        The Case Officer to liaise with the applicant over the contribution to the sustainable travel contribution.

(2)        Clarification over DDA parking and whether the 4 spaces mobility spaces at present and, if not, where will the mobility-impaired park?

(3)        Whether the College can be encouraged to incorporate a public café bar on the ground floor element, thus reducing the scale of their operation on the first floor (if still viable) to lessen the impact upon residents.

(4)        The Chairman wanted the local Residents’ Association to be involved in the discussions.

The Chairman advised that the public speaker had withdrawn his request to speak on the following item but, with the agreement of Committee, the application would be considered next to allow members of the public, who were present to hear the item, leave the meeting.

Erection of a five bed dwelling house and the formation of a new improved access for Mr D Howard

Members were advised that, since production of the Case Officer’s report, the Head of Regeneration and Policy had obtained an independent arboricultural report, in order that a more comprehensive view could be obtained.  The report had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting.  As a result of the report’s findings, the Officer recommendation had been amended.

It was proposed by Councillor Coates and seconded by Councillor Denwood:

“That Planning Permission be granted, in accordance with the Head of Regeneration and Policy’s recommendation.

Upon being put to the vote, 18 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 1 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report, with amendment to condition 17, as follows:

1.         Standard time limit.

2.         Development to accord with the approved plans and supplementary documents.

3.         Precise details/samples of all external materials including window sample.

4.         Access to be provided prior to commencement of development and retained at all times thereafter.

5.         Existing access to be permanently closed off when the new access is operational.

6.         Provision of parking and turning to be provided in full and retained.

7.         Visibility splays to be provided and maintained at all times.

8.         Site to be drained on a separate system and details of the surface water drainage to be submitted and agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

9.         Tree Protection Condition.

10.       Development to be carried out in accordance with the AMS.

11.       Standard landscaping condition.

12.       Existing stone and copings from the wall fronting Westbourne Road to be reused unless otherwise indicated in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

13.       Unforeseen contamination condition.

14.       Construction hours condition.

15.       Properties to meet at least Code Level 3 for Sustainable Homes.

16.       No development until a scheme for measures to incorporate at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements via on-site renewable sources is agreed.

17.       Details of the materials of the screen barriers to the roof, in the position shown on the applicant’s drawing, at a height of no less than 0.9 m to be agreed and implemented, etc.

18.       No windows or doors to be inserted in the elevation facing 2 Sunny Hill without express consent from the Local Planning Authority.

19.       Removal of PD rights (Parts 1 and 2).

And to the following condition (suitably worded):

20.       Three replacement species, of a type, location and size to be agreed, one of the species should be a yew tree, with a preference expressed by Members for it to be planted at the front unless explicitly proven that this cannot be achieved.

APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

It was noted that Councillor Robinson had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, being a member of the West End Partnership.

Variation of Conditions 2 and 3 on approved application 07/01641/FUL to alter elevations, provide additional car parking and provide private open space to the apartments in the form of balconies to the rear elevations. Removal of Condition 7 regarding occupancy age restriction for Adactus Housing Association Ltd

It was proposed by Councillor Kay and seconded by Councillor Coates:

“That Planning Permission be granted.”

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 5 Members against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report, with amendment to condition 13:

1.         Expiration of consent as 07/01641/FUL – 9 March 2011.

2.         Amended plans dated 31 August 2010.

3.         Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans,

4.         Samples of materials to be agreed.

5.         Contaminated land study to be carried out and any remedial works considered necessary undertaken.

6.         Construction to take place only between 0800 and 1800 Monday to Saturday, no working on Sundays or officially recognised public holidays.

7.         External finish to the rear timber screening to be agreed.

8.         10% on site energy generation.

9.         Dwellings to be built to minimum Code 3 sustainable homes.

10.       Landscaping to be agreed and implemented.

11.       Cycle storage to be provided.

12.       Highway construction details to be agreed.

13.       Parking spaces to be provided and retained as such, with 1 parking space to be allocated to each unit.

It was noted that Councillor Kay had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, being a friend of one of the objectors.

Construction of new access track and a new bridge, top dressing to existing hardstanding adjacent to pond and retention of the new access for Mr Anthony Gardner

It was proposed by Councillor Helme and seconded by Councillor Pritchard:

“That Planning Permission be granted.”

Upon being put to the vote, 17 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 1 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report, with replacement of condition 4:

1.         Standard 3 year time limit.

2.         Amended plans and proposals.

3.         Development in accordance with approved plans.

4.         Removal of the hardstanding adjacent the pond.

5.         A sample strip of the access track measuring 4m in length to be agreed on site.

6.         Working Measures condition(s) as requested by the County Ecologist.

7.         Hours of construction – 0800 to 1800 only with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

And to the following additional condition (suitably worded):

8.         Boundary details to be agreed, including a short section of a new stone wall extending back into the field on the left-hand side as a retaining wall.

The meeting was adjourned at 1.00 p.m. for lunch.

The meeting reconvened at 1.25 p.m.

It was noted that Councillor Day had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, being a member of the Heysham Power Station Liaison Group.

It was noted that Councillor Denwood had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, being a member of the Heysham Power Station Liaison Group.

It was noted that Councillor Greenall had previously declared personal and prejudicial interests in the following item, being a British Energy employee, left the room during its consideration and did not vote on the matter.

It was proposed by Councillor Budden and seconded by Councillor Redfern:

“That Hazardous Substance Consent be granted.”

Upon being put to the vote, 17 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Hazardous Substance Consent be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         The hazardous substances shall be stored and used in accordance with the particulars provided on the application form and the areas shown on the approved plans, and shall not be used or stored outside those areas at any time.

It was noted that Councillor Greenall had previously declared personal and prejudicial interests in the following item, being a director of Heysham Mossgate (Community Facilities) Company Ltd, left the room during its consideration and did not vote on the matter.

Change of use of land to form a car park for Rushcliffe Healthcare Ltd

It was proposed by Councillor Budden and seconded by Councillor Day:

“That temporary Planning Permission be granted.”

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 temporary Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Standard 3 year timescale.

2.         Temporary permission – use for 2 years.

3.         Works to accord with plans.

4.         Overspill car park permitted under planning permission 09/00668/FUL to the rear of Heysham Free Methodist Church on Emmaus Road shall not be constructed or brought into use whilst the temporary car park hereby approved remains in use.

5.         East elevation of health building – details required prior to commencement.

6.         Surface treatment between car spaces nos. 39 and 40 on the approved plan to prevent parking – details required prior to commencement.

The Chairman advised that, with the agreement of Committee, the following application would be considered next to allow a member of the public, who was present to hear the item, leave the meeting.

Variation of condition 2 on approved application 09/00281/FUL to amend plans in order to relocate biomass boiler, minor extension to bulk storage area and alteration to service yard for Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

It was proposed by Councillor Greenall and seconded by Councillor Kay:

“That Condition 2 of Planning Permission 09/00281/FUL be varied.”

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 Condition 2 of Planning Permission 09/00281/FUL be varied to state:

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plans listed below that have been subsequently approved by the local planning authority:

            PO2 Rev N – proposed site plan

            PO3 Rev C – mezzanine and roof plan

            PO4 Rev C – proposed elevations

            PO5 Rev B – proposed site sections

            PO6 Rev C – proposed long elevation

            PO7 Rev C – proposed floor plans.

Change of use and refurbishment/extension to the Derby Home building to provide mental health resource centre for Derby Home (Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust)

It was proposed by Councillor Denwood and seconded by Councillor Redfern:

“That Planning Permission be granted.”

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 Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Standard Time Limit.

2.         Development in accordance with approved plans.

3.         Amended plans (TBC).

4.         Details and samples of all external materials.

5.         Notwithstanding the plans submitted, details of windows and doors.

6.         Details of the ramp access (materials surfacing and handrails).

7.         Details of external lighting and CCTV.

8.         Details of bat mitigation.

9.         Tree Protection condition.

10.       Development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted     Arboricultural Method Statement.

11.       Replacement tree planting (ratio 3:1).

12.       Landscaping scheme.

13.       Parking/Cycle provision to be provided and retained.

14.       Travel Plan to be implemented.

15.       At least 10% on-site reneweables.

16.       Building to be used as a D1 use in association with the NHS Pathfinders Drive complex.

Erection of detached dwelling in land to the rear for Mr & Mrs John Robinson

It was noted that Councillor Dennison had previously declared personal and prejudicial interests in the following item, being a member of Morecambe Town Council, as was the applicant, left the room during its consideration and did not vote on the matter.

It was noted that Councillor Greenall had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, being a member of the MBI.

Change of use from former maisonette to day care centre for children (aged from birth - 2 years) (Use Class D1) for Mr. Martin Shenton

It was proposed by Councillor Chapman and seconded by Councillor Helme:

“That Planning Permission be granted.”

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

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Standard 3 year time limit.

2.         Development carried out in accordance with approved plans.

3.         Hours of use 0700 to 1900 Monday to Saturday.

4.         Use of outdoor space restricted 1000 to 1600.

5.         Noise Assessment to be submitted.

6.         Scheme for Odour Control.

Councillors Day and Marsland left the meeting at this point.

Retrospective application for raising of roof height of existing garage for John Toder

It was proposed by Councillor Dennison and seconded by Councillor Kay:

“That Planning Permission be granted.”

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

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted (no planning conditions are required because the development has already been undertaken and is to an acceptable standard and design).

It was noted that Councillor Roe had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, the application having come before Carnforth Town Council.

It was noted that Councillor Johnson had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, being a member of Carnforth Town Council Planning Committee.

Erection of a new dwelling for Mr D Barnes

It was proposed by Councillor Helme and seconded by Councillor Denwood:

“That Planning Permission be granted.”

Upon being put to the vote, 13 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 3 against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.                                                                           

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Development to be built in accordance with the approved plans.

2.         Amended elevations – windows.

3.         GDO tolerances removed.

4.         Boundary treatments to be agreed.

5.         Separate system of drainage.

6.         Turning area to be provided and maintained.

7.         Unexpected contamination.

8.         Samples of external materials.

9.         Hours of construction 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1400, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

10.       Garage to be maintained for the parking of a vehicle.

11.       Details of the means of the 10% energy generation to be agreed.

12.       Dwelling to be built to a minimum of Code 3 for Sustainable Homes standards.

Retrospective application for the part change of use of existing vehicle storage and maintenance building to storage distribution and business use for Alan Stephenson and Son

It was proposed by Councillor Williamson and seconded by Councillor Dennison:

“That Planning Permission be granted in principle and the final decision delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Policy.”

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

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted in principle, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report, and amendment of condition 5, and the final decision delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Policy to consult the Environment Agency on any issues with discharge from the Brewery into the nearby beck:

1.         Development to be carried out in accordance with approved plans.

2.         Amended plans/further details provided on 25 August 2010.

3.         Personal permission restricting occupancy of the units as follows:

            Unit 2a Alan Stephenson Coaches

            Unit 2b Mortimer’s Storage

            Unit 2c Scott’s Storage

            Unit 2d La Maison Storage

            Unit 2e Kirkby Lonsdale Brewery

with no further sub-division or amalgamation of units to occur without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority.

4.         Removal of permitted development rights of Part 8 of Schedule 2 of GDPO (industrial/commercial buildings).

5.         No operations to occur before 0800 or after 1800 on any weekday, Saturdays, not at all or on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

6.         No vehicular movements to or from the site between 0000 and 0600.

7.         All vehicles to be parked within the yard area and no parking on the access road or surrounding highways.

8.         Related loading and unloading as granted in application 96/00135/FUL shall be kept available at all times.

9.         Use of buildings to be kept limited to light industrial, business and storage only, as indicated on approved plan.

10.       No work to be carried on outside of the buildings on site.

11.       Details of the parking of mini buses and car parks shown on plan to be provided and available within one month of the date of this permission.

12.       Details of covered cycle storage to be provided and retained on site – details to be agreed in writing.

Application for development by a District Council

Strengthening works to the third floor of right hand bay to provide for heavy picture racking used for storage of museum items for Lancaster City Council

It was proposed by Councillor Dennison and seconded by Councillor Greenall:

“That the application be referred to Government Office North West with a recommendation that Listed Building Consent be granted.”

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

Resolved:

That the application be referred to Government Office North West with a recommendation that Listed Building Consent be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Standard Listed Building consent timescale.

2.         Works to accord with approved plans.

The Environmental Protection District Team Leader left the meeting at this point.

The Head of Regeneration and Policy submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions to Officers.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.