Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8^th June 2009 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Site Visits were held in respect of the following applications:

The following Members were present at the site visits, which took place on Monday, 22^nd June 2009:

Councillors Keith Budden (Chairman), Joyce Pritchard (Vice-Cbairman), Eileen Blamire, Sheila Denwood, John Day, Mike Greenall, Val Histed, Geoff Marsland, Peter Robinson and Bob Roe  

Officers in Attendance:

There were no items of urgent business.

Members were advised of the following declarations of interest:

Councillor Helme declared a personal interest in A9 09/00527/OUT – Ellel Institute, Stoney Lane, Galgate – being a member of Ellel Parish Council.

Councillor Pritchard declared a personal and prejudicial interest in A10 09/00401/FUL – 5 Manor Court, Brookhouse, Lancaster and A11 09/00402/LB – 5 Manor Court, Brookhouse, Lancaster – having registered to speak as Ward Councillor in favour of the applications.

Councillor Blamire declared a personal and prejudicial interest in A13 09/00330/DPA - Land for Proposed Bailrigg Business Park, Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster – being a Cabinet Member and the matter having been considered previously by Cabinet.

Councillor Charles declared a personal and prejudicial interest in A13 09/00330/DPA – Land for Proposed Bailrigg Business Park, Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster – being a Cabinet Member and the matter having been considered previously by Cabinet.

Councillor Gilbert declared a personal and prejudicial interest in A13 09/00330/DPA – Land for Proposed Bailrigg Business Park, Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster – being a Cabinet Member and the matter having been considered previously by Cabinet.

Councillor Coates declared a personal and prejudicial interest in A13 09/00330/DPA – Land for Proposed Bailrigg Business Park, Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster – having objected to the previous application.

Councillor Heath declared a personal and prejudicial interest in A13 09/00330/DPA – Land for Proposed Bailrigg Business Park, Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster – having objected to the previous application.

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

Applications to be dealt with by the District Council without formal consultation with the County Council.

It was noted that Councillor Pritchard had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, having registered to speak as Ward Councillor and supporter of the application.  Councillor Pritchard spoke on the item, left the meeting whilst the application was being considered and did not vote on the matter.

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Councillor Pritchard spoke to the Committee as Ward Councillor and in support of applications A10 and A11.)

Councillor Pritchard addressed the Committee in support of the application and advised that the applicant’s initial application for Planning and Listed Building Consent for the erection of a timber framed conservatory had been refused, as it had been deemed unsuitable, and the applicant had appealed.  However, other developments had been permitted locally, such as a garage extension, which had been built next to a listed farmhouse, and there was another barn conversion locally, which had an extension visible from the road.  The applicant had subsequently been advised that a small lean-to extension using traditional materials might be considered more favourably, and the applicant had accepted this.  The applicant had employed specialist architects, and had entered into dialogue with Planning Services, and planning officers had visited the site.  The applicant had submitted further proposals in line with advice from Planning Services, but these had been turned down.  The applicant felt that his submission was in keeping with the area and that he had done what had been asked of him by Planning Services.  No objections to the proposal had been received from the Parish Council.  Members were asked to consider the application favourably.

Members considered the application.

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

“That Planning Permission be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 7 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons, as set out in the report:

1.         Although of an appropriate architectural style and materials, the proposed development would represent a substantial extension to the exposed side of this converted barn, which at the present time still retains its original simple agricultural form.  The addition of the proposed extension in the centre of this elevation of the building would result in the loss of that traditional architectural character and simplicity which is fundamental to the character and appearance of the group as a whole.  The proposed development would therefore conflict with the requirement of saved policy E20 (The Re-use of Buildings in the Countryside).

2.         The proposed development is in a prominent location, which would dominate this side of the building and detract from the shape, character, appearance and historic integrity of the barn.  Because of its visual prominence at the focal point of the vista through the group, it would also dominate and detract from the character, appearance and historic integrity of the group as a whole.  The proposed development would, in consequence, therefore, seriously detract from the character, appearance and historic integrity of the setting of the listed building and its former curtilage structures and would conflict with the requirements of Core Strategy policy E1 (Environmental Capital)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

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

“That Listed Building Consent be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 7 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Listed Building Consent be refused for the following reasons, as set out in the report:

1.         Although of an appropriate architectural style and materials, the proposed development would represent a substantial extension to the exposed side of this converted barn, which at the present time still retains its original simple agricultural form.  The addition of the proposed extension in the centre of this elevation of the building would result in the loss of that traditional architectural character and simplicity which is fundamental to the character and appearance of the group as a whole.  The proposed development would therefore conflict with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) and Saved Policies E33 (Alterations or Extensions to Historic Buildings) and E20 (The Re-use of Buildings in the Countryside).

2.         The proposed development is in a prominent location, which would dominate this side of the building and detract from the shape, character, appearance and historic integrity of the barn.  Because of its visual prominence at the focal point of the vista through the group, it would also dominate and detract from the character, appearance and historic integrity of the group as a whole.  The proposed development would, in consequence, therefore, seriously detract from the character, appearance and historic integrity of the setting of the listed building and its former curtilage structures and would conflict with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) and Saved Policy E33 (Alterations or Extensions to Historic Buildings).

3.         The proposed development would set a strong precedent for further similar unnecessary extensions elsewhere within this group, which would become difficult to resist, therefore prejudicing the Council’s policy in seeking to conserve the historic environment.

Application for development by a District Council

It was noted that Councillor Blamire had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, being a Cabinet Member and the matter having been considered previously by Cabinet, left the room during its consideration and did not vote on the item.

It was noted that Councillor Charles had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, being a Cabinet Member and the matter having been considered previously by Cabinet, left the room during its consideration and did not vote on the item.

It was noted that Councillor Gilbert had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, being a Cabinet Member and the matter having been considered previously by Cabinet, left the room during its consideration and did not vote on the item.

It was noted that Councillor Coates had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, having objected to the previous application, left the room during its consideration and did not vote on the item.

It was noted that Councillor Heath had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, having objected to the previous application, left the room during its consideration and did not vote on the item.

Outline application for a Science Park (approximately 34,000 sq m of B1 use floorspace) and full application for a new access off the A6, construction of an internal spine road and provision of landscaping for Lancaster City Council

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Roberta Kerr, Vice-Chairman of Scotforth Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the application.

Kathryn Donnelly of WYG Planning and Design spoke in support of the application.)

Roberta Kerr, Vice-Chairman of Scotforth Parish Council, addressed the Committee and advised Members that she was responding on behalf of Bailrigg Village.  Residents strongly opposed the application and one-third had made their views known.  Traffic was a contentious issue.  County Highways had concerns and there was capacity already on the A6.  An independent survey had ranked the site 22^nd out of 25 regional sites, scoring less than 45% on sustainability and compliance with regional policy.  Paragraph 7.2.5 of the officer’s report was uncompromising in that traffic was the most contentious issue associated with the scheme.  The accuracy of the transport assessment was questionable.  It was unclear how the 860 car parking spaces in the submission would be significantly reduced to 600 and how the move away from car usage would be sustainable.  The flooding of Ou Beck and the potential for overflow into residents’ septic tanks was of concern.   The Flood Risk Assessment had predicted that during 1 in 100 year flood events, flood levels would overtop Ou Beck channel banks.  Climate change meant that measures were needed to address such events, as was a catchment study to demonstrate the effect of proposed discharges.   The proximity of the end of the spine road to Bailrigg village would result in a lack of space for adequate screening.  If approved, the application should be conditioned, and workable measures introduced to control car usage.

Kathryn Donnelly of WYG Planning and Design addressed the Committee and advised Members that the traffic problems related had been comprehensively addressed through consultation with the County Council and Highway Authority, and a Travel Plan would be introduced.  Landscaping and screening would be incorporated at Bailrigg and the biodiversity of the area enhanced.  Flood risk had been seriously addressed and risk assessed, showing that the development would have no impact on dwellings.  Regional investment and contribution to the economy would result in a higher ranking of the site.  The benchmark figure had been set at 40% and the site had passed the sustainability test by scoring an overall average of 47%.  The focus of the Science Park was to retain the qualified workforce, and complied with the Regional Spatial Strategy.  The principle of the Science Park had been accepted in the Core Strategy and Regional Development Plans.  The development would represent a building of high design and would increase employment in the district.

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

“(1)      That Outline Planning Permission for a Science Park be granted.

(2)        That Planning Permission for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Councillors Robinson and Heath left the meeting at this point.

APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Applications to be dealt with by the District Council without formal consultation with the County Council

Demolition of existing building and erection of new single building to house 44 no 2 bedroom and 4 no 1 bedroom assisted living apartments, 2 nurses studios, an under croft parking area and an under croft storage facility for use of the apartments for
Hay Carr Estates/ Mitchells of Lancaster

It was proposed by Councillor Blamire and seconded by Councillor Taylor:

“That, subject to Legal Services’ confirmation that the Unilateral Undertaking is satisfactory, Planning Permission be granted.”

Upon being put to the vote, 16 Member voted in favour of the proposition and 1 against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That, subject to Legal Services’ confirmation that the Unilateral Undertaking is satisfactory, the application be approved, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Standard three year condition.

2.         Amended plans 21^st May 2009, showing alterations to car park and ramped access to garden.

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

4.         No development to take place until developers agree programme of public transport and pedestrian access improvements.

5.         No development to take place until developers have agreed provision of affordable housing.

6.         Samples of materials to be agreed.

7.         Scheme for microgeneration to be agreed.

8.         Landscaping scheme to be agreed and implemented.

9.         Trees to be protected from damage during construction.

10.       Accommodation to be occupied by people over 55 only.

11.       Construction and demolition to take place only between 0800 – 1800 hours, Mondays to Fridays – no work on Sundays or officially recognised public holidays.

12.       Details of ventilation from car park to be agreed.

13.       Separated drainage system to be provided.

and to the following additional condition (suitably worded):

14.       Details of any pile driving to be agreed.

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

“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:

1.         Standard 3 year time limit.

2.         Development in accordance with approved plans.

3.         The front elevation shall be finished in traditional stone, details to be agreed.

4.         Details of stone heads, reveals, sills, drip mouldings and verge copings to be agreed.

5.         Details of the roof eaves, ridges and verges to be agreed.

6.         Colour of render to be agreed.

7.         Use of a late roof details to be agreed.

8.         Finishes of external woodwork to be agreed.

9.         Windows on the first floor of the east elevation to be fitted with obscure glazing only.

10.       Limitation to Use Class C3 (Dwelling House).

and to the following additional condition (suitably worded):

11.       Precise method of opening to the new bathroom windows to be agreed.

The meeting was adjourned at 1.30 p.m. for lunch.

The meeting was reconvened at 1.55 p.m.

Councillor Taylor left the meeting at this point.

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

“That Planning Permission be granted.”

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

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following amended condition:

1.         Dwelling to be occupied by person or persons involved in the adjoining equestrian business or agricultural use in the future.

It was noted that Councillor Helme had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, being a member of Ellel Parish Council.

Councillor Marsland left mid-way through the following item.

It was proposed by Councillor Sherlock and seconded by Councillor Roe:

“That, subject to the concerns of the Highway Authority and Environment Agency being satisfactorily addressed, Outline Planning Permission be granted.”

Upon being put to the vote, 15 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That, subject to the concerns of the Highway Authority and Environment Agency being satisfactorily addressed, Outline Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Standard time limit.

2.         Outline permission – full details to be submitted.

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

4.         Off street parking to be provided and retained at all times thereafter.

5.         The footway to be provided and retained at all times thereafter.

6.         All existing stone and architectural features, including existing stone plaques, to be carefully removed and stored securely for re-use on the proposed development.

7.         Removal of permitted development rights.

and to the following additional conditions (suitably worded):

8.         Hours of construction.

9.         Recording of existing building.

10.       Land contamination study.

Application for development by a District Council

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

“That the County Council be advised that the City Council approves the proposal in principle, subject to

(1)        The County Council providing compensatory tree planting for those removed

(2)        The County Council giving consideration to improving access across the busy      A583 to Bull Beck picnic area.”

Upon being put to the vote, 15 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the County Council be advised that the City Council approves the proposal in principle, subject to

(1)        The County Council providing compensatory tree planting for those removed

(2)        The County Council giving consideration to improving access across the busy      A583 to Bull Beck picnic area.

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

Resolved:

That the report be noted.