Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 7^th December 2009 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

There were no items of urgent business.

Members were advised of the following declarations of interest:

Councillor Greenall declared a personal and prejudicial interest in A6 09/01105/FUL – Tarnwater, Milnthorpe Road, Yealand Conyers – being an employee of British Energy.

Councillor Budden declared a personal interest in A8 09/01003/FUL – 119 Main Road, Bolton-le-Sands – being a member of Bolton-le-Sands Parish Council.

Councillor Dennison declared a personal interest in A10 09/01012/FUL - 2 Albany Road, Morecambe – having asked for the application to be placed on the agenda on behalf of a Group Member who was ill at the time.

Councillor Roe declared a personal and prejudicial interest in A12 09/00604/CU – Higher Addington Barn, Long Dales Road, Nether Kellet – the applicant being a personal friend.

Councillor Woodruff declared a personal interest in A13 09/01087/CU – 21 Brock Street, Lancaster – being a member of the catering trade.

Councillor Brown declared a personal interest in A15 09/01110/CCC – Tewitfield Marina, Chapel Lane, Priest Hutton – being a County Councillor and a School Governor of Heysham High School.

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

APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Use of land and buildings for motor vehicle body repair and construction (tipper truck bodies) and for motor vehicle accident repair (B2 Use) for Messrs AJ and E Hayton

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Bill Stephens spoke to the Committee in objection to the application.  Brian Barden from Barden Planning Consultants spoke in support.)

Bill Stephens of Stephens Associates, addressed the Committee in objection to the application, on behalf of four residents, and advised that the application was to ‘consolidate’ the industrial uses at Bainsbeck Farm, including a large modern factory unit, which was unacceptable under Local Plan Policy E21 relating to farm diversification.  The uses were inappropriate for a rural location on the outskirts of Arkholme, in a Conservation Area, and were contrary to Local Plan Policies E4, 20, 34 and 35 and conflicted with Policies SC3 and E1 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy.  A petition, complaining about the continued nuisance from noise and dust, signed by 33 residents, had been sent to the Council last September.  Objections had been made by local residents concerning noise, disturbance and pollution, and the inappropriateness of the site for industrial use of this kind.  The Highway Authority had raised no objections, but the County Council’s Assistant Area Manager had stated that he did not have access to the full planning history of the site and was clearly unaware of the significant increase in lorry traffic, with large articulated vehicles crossing into the line of oncoming traffic and mounting the highway verge to gain access.  Activities on site did not have planning consent, and the rear yard areas had not been included in any planning consent.  There was no evidence that it was brought into industrial use more than 10 years ago.  Even so, intensification on site was such that planning permission was required.  Adversely, an acceptance that industrial activities were B2 use would then mean that other types of general industry and extensions to buildings would be permitted there.  It was stated that bringing the industrial activities on site under a single planning permission would allow an opportunity to regulate more clearly.  The planning conditions that were proposed were poorly worded and not prescriptive enough.   Rather than approve a planning application that would further increase the scale and impact of industrial activities at the farm, Mr. Stephens urged Committee to refuse the application and instruct officers to enforce the existing planning conditions.

Brian Barden of Barden Planning Consultants spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application, and advised Committee that he was concerned at references made to contraventions of Local Plan and Lancaster District Core Strategy policies and inappropriate uses.  Consolidation of activities on site in a single planning application would provide clarity and allow clearer regulation.  Areas of land had been used in excess of 10 years and there were certificates of lawful use.  The requirement that shot blasting take place only indoors and for there to be a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

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

Siting of an 11 KW wind turbine mounted onfree-standing 18 metre steel mast for Mr Phil Rogerson

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Dawn Hancock, Clerk to Yealand Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.  Michael Gordon of Segen Limited spoke in support.)

Dawn Hancock, Clerk to Yealand Conyers Parish Council, spoke generally and in objection to the application.  Following a Parish meeting held on 2^nd December, which had been attended by a large number of people, residents had expressed sympathy with the needs of the applicant, but raised concerns regarding the proposed siting of the wind turbine and whether it would attain the predicted performance.  There was no evidence of wind speed measurements having been carried out on-site.  If approved, restrictions on night-time noise levels were requested.  The structure would impact on the landscape, and the Parish Council was of the opinion that the benefits to be drawn from its siting were extremely weak, given the location.  Committee was asked to refuse the application.

Michael Gordon from Segen Limited spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application, and advised Committee that the proposed wind turbine was small scale, generating 18 MW.  The installation would allow the business to secure more efficient and environmentally friendly energy, whilst contributing towards the grid, and would save 10½ tonnes of carbon emissions per year and benefit the area.  The application conformed with Local and Regional planning policy.  A detailed professional report had been obtained in support.  The site was outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) boundary, and the AONB Executive had raised no objections to the proposal.  Whilst turbines often evoked strong local objection, they were often seen as objects of beauty.  Committee was urged to approve the application.

Members considered the application.

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

“That the application be approved.”

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 the application be approved, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Standard three year condition.

2.         Amended plans 3^rd December 2009, relocating the installation 51 metres from the railway boundary.

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

4.         When the installation becomes redundant, within 6 months it must be removed and the site reinstated.

Removal of existing roof and creation of a second storey involving raising the roof height. Installation of two dormer windows to the front and three velux windows to the rear and erection of a single storey side extension for Mr and Mrs A Kneal

((Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Roger James spoke in objection to the application.  Mrs. Kneale, the applicant, spoke in support.)

Roger James, resident of the adjoining property on the southern boundary, spoke in opposition to the application.  He circulated a montage of photographs showing the site and advised that the proposal represented an overbearing development, which would impact on the amenity of the garden to the house at the rear.  The proposal represented a substantial increase in height to the property, with the existing roof being removed to create a second storey, which would overlook his garden and impact on his enjoyment of such.  He asked Committee to consider the visual amenity on his property.  A similar application had previously been approved by Committee and he asked that the new proposal be considered on its own merits.

Mrs. Kneale, the applicant, spoke in support of the application and advised Members that the dormers represented the only change to the previous approved application.  The property had been put on the market for sale but, due the pitch of the roof and its felt composition, prospective purchasers had been put off, and the way the present roof was pitched meant that roof insulation could not be put in the loft.  Planning permission was requested for 3 velux windows to the back of the property, and the only way properties could be overlooked would be by someone standing on a chair to look out.  The height and size of the proposal had not changed since the previous application.  The central heating system at the property was inadequate, being nearly 40 years old, and an eco friendly system was needed.  The application was to increase the bedrooms from 2 to 4 to accommodate her daughter, who had returned home.

Members considered the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Heath and seconded by Councillor Histed:

“That the application be approved.”

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 the application be approved, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Standard three year time limit.

2.         In accordance with the approved plans.

3.         Window to the west elevation to be fitted with obscure glazing.

It was noted that Councillor Dennison had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, having asked for the application to be placed on the agenda on behalf of a Group Members who was ill at the time.

Various alterations and extensions to existing bungalow to form two-storey dwelling with additional floor in roofspace for Mr D Ingleby

((Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Councillor John Barnes spoke as Ward Councillor in opposition to the application.  Alan Camm, agent for the applicant, spoke in support.)

Councillor Barnes addressed the meeting as Ward Councillor and objector to the application.  He advised that when the proposal had first been raised by his constituents, he had visited the site on a number of occasions and noted the differing ground levels.  The height of the proposal would be exceeded only by terraced properties, and represented an over-intensive use of the site.  The variance in ground levels produced serious overlooking problems and a reduction in amenities for adjoining properties.  The proposal would set a precedent, and he urged Committee to consider the application carefully and reject the matter on two grounds, namely that it was an over-intensive development and created serious overlooking problems.  These were significant planning matters and he thanked Committee for allowing him to speak.

Alan Camm, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.  He advised that, with regard to the overlooking aspect, the ground behind the property sloped up towards the property to the rear.  His client’s property was the only one-storey bungalow on Albany Road and the proposal would allow it to compliment the rest of the street.  The applicant had lived in the property since she was 8 years old and now needed additional space for her children.  The overlooking problem to the rear elevation could be addressed.  Many of the properties in the vicinity were roughly the same size as the proposal, and he and the applicant were willing to speak to the person residing to the rear of the property to address any problems.

Members considered the application.

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

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 18 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

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

1.         Detrimental to neighbouring residential amenity.

2.         Overdevelopment of the site.

APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Retention of use of Unit 1 as showroom (Use Class A1), Change of Use of Unit 2 to showroom (Use Class A1) and Retention of Unit 3 Storage and Distribution use (Use Class B8) for Mr and Mrs Michael Thomas

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

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 19 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report, with removal of conditions 1 and 2, to be replaced with 3 separate individually-drafted conditions relating to the use of each of the 3 units (e.g. the use of a unit x shall be strictly limited to that of a kitchen showroom only).  In respect of both showrooms, ensure that both of their conditions include ‘no retail sales’:

3.         No servicing, fitting or repairs to motor cycles on site.

4.         No external display or storage of materials, products, goods for sale or scrap.

It was noted that Councillor Budden had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, being a member of Bolton-le-Sands Parish Council.

Creation of 5 additional car parking spaces for Daffodil Homes Ltd

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

“That Outline Planning Permission, Prior Approval, Listed Building Consent, Advertisement Consent, Approval of Reserved Matters, Conservation Area Consent be granted.”

Upon being put to the vote, 14 Members voted in favour of the proposition, 4 against, with 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Outline Planning Permission, Prior Approval, Listed Building Consent, Advertisement Consent, Approval of Reserved Matters, Conservation Area Consent be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Standard 3 year time limit.

2.         Development to be in accordance with the approved plans.

3.         Number of parking spaces to be agreed.

4.         Tree planting and mitigation to be implemented in accordance with the Arboricultural Statement.

5.         Car parking provision not be implemented until the implementation/completion of the off-site highway works (traffic calming) agreed under 07/01407/FUL.

6.         As may be required by the consultees.

Councillor Histed left the meeting mid-way through the following item.

Demolition of units 53-67 Euston Road and creation of a mixed use development consisting of A1 retail units and C1 hotel use for JAP (Morecambe) LLP

It was proposed by Councillor Brown and seconded by Councillor Rogerson:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 17 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the signing of a S106 Agreement covering:

1.         A Public Realm Strategy for the entire Arndale Centre to be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority.  The public realm improvements, as set out in the agreed Strategy, for Euston Square and the section of Euston Road in front of the development to be funded by the developer and implemented prior to the development being occupied.

And to the following conditions, as set out in the report, with amendments to conditions 9 and 10:

1.         Standard three year planning permission timescale.

2.         Development to accord with approved plans.

3.         At least 10% on site renewable energy production.

4.         Submission of materials – notwithstanding plans.

5.         Recessing of windows.

6.         Provision of CCTV.

7.         Submission of refuse storage details.

8.         Adoptable highway details.

9.         Off-site highway improvements – links and suitable road crossings to the bus and train stations (amendment to ensure that the off-site highway works relate to the central refuge, etc.).

10.       Cycle storage – details to be agreed, to include shower facilities.

11.       Wheel cleaning facilities – temporary during construction.

12.       Separate drainage system.

13.       Opening hours (retail space) – 0800 – 2000 Monday to Saturday, 1000 – 1800 Sunday.

14.       Construction hours – 0800 – 1800 Monday to Friday, 0800 – 1400 Saturday.

15.       Delivery hours – 0700 – 2000 Monday to Saturday.

16.       Scheme for dust control.

17.       Pile driving condition.

18.       Commercial/industrial noise break out.

19.       Scheme for odour control – cooking and food.

20.       Ventilation details.

21.       External lighting details.

22.       Standard contaminated land condition.

23.       Contaminated land – importation of soil and materials.

24.       Contaminated land – prevention of new contamination.

25.       Bunding of tanks.

26.       Asbestos removal.

27.       Secured by Design.

And to

28.       Site Management Plan (including site office, site compound, parking of all vehicles, equipment and machinery, site deliveries, storage of materials, demolition plan, removal of construction waste).

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

Councillors Coates, Heath, Kay and Woodruff left the meeting at this point.

The meeting reconvened at 1.30 p.m.

At this point in the meeting, the Head of Planning Services advised Members regarding the Secretary of State’s recent decision on the Centros proposals.

It was noted that Councillor Roe had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, the applicant being a personal friend, left the room during its consideration and did not vote on the matter.

Change of Use of Barn to form Live/Work Unit for (as Consent 06/00462/CU) Mr Richard Dennison

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

“That the application be approved.”

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 the application be approved, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Standard three year condition.

2.         Amended plans 28^th August 2009.

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

4.         Materials to be agreed.

5.         Removal of permitted development rights – extensions.

6.         Removal of permitted development rights – doors and windows.

7.         Tree planting to be carried out along the west side of the new access drive.

8.         Living accommodation to be occupied only in association with the use of the associated workspace.

9.         Sight lines either side of access point to be kept clear of obstruction.

10.       At least 10% energy needs to be generated on site.

And to the following additional conditions (suitably worded):

11.       Standard hours of construction.

12.       Standard hours of work/use conditions.

13.       No outside working.

14.       All existing accesses to the former complex to be closed/reinstated once new access is available for use.

15.       Nature of business to be agreed prior to use commencing.

Note

The applicant to contact Planning Services to discuss the submission of an alternative acceptable scheme.

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

Change of use from restaurant (A3) to restaurant and hot food take-away (A3 and A5) for Mr Siraj Bapu

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

“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 planning permission be refused for the following reasons, as set out in the report:

1.         The retention of the A5 use would lead to an over-accumulation of hot food takeaway outlets within this short terrace of properties.  Policies S4 and S7 of the Lancaster District Local Plan (1996-2006) seek to maintain uses which contribute to the vitality and viability of the locality, and which retain active frontages during normal shopping hours.  Uses such as this tend to be open during hours of demand (i.e. lunchtime and evenings/night time).  Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policies S4 and S7, and the general provisions of Planning Policy Statement 6 – ‘Planning for Town Centres’.

2.         The property occupies an important position within the City Conservation Area, close to the Listed Lancaster Town Hall.  In addition, this row of properties is designed as a Key Townscape Feature, and the adjoining building (Number 23) has recently won a Lancaster Design Award.  The change of use from a restaurant/café to a late night hot food takeaway outlet prejudices the local planning authority’s policy of resisting changes of use of buildings that make a positive contribution to a Conservation Area.  Therefore, the application is contrary to Policy E36 of the Lancaster District Local Plan.

It was noted that Councillor Brown had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, being a County Councillor and a School Governor of Heysham High School.

Erection of block of holiday let flats consisting of 9 one bed and 1 two bed with toilet block, laundry facilities and site office for Waldenn Construction Ltd

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

“That the application be approved.”

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, subject to no significant objections being raised by the outstanding consultees, the application be approved in principle, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report, being delegated to the Head of Planning to enable the amendment of the S106 Legal Agreement to include the current development:

1.         Standard three year time limit.

2.         Development to be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

3.         Amended plans – ramps and parking arrangements.

4.         Holiday accommodation only.

5.         Unexpected contaminated land.

6.         Drainage on a separate system.

7.         Landscaping to be agreed, implemented and maintained.

8.         Car parking to be provided and maintained.

9.         Archaeological investigation to be undertaken prior to works being commenced.

10.       No vegetation clearance works are undertaken during the nesting season (March to July inclusive).

11.       Materials to match those of the neighbouring units.

12.       As may be required by the consultees.

Advice

1.         The development is subject to a S106 Agreement controlling the nature and occupancy of the units.

2.         Control of on-site fires.

And subject to the following additional conditions (suitably worded):

13.       Conditions and advice notes regarding British Waterways’ requirements (mitigation measures, etc.)

14.       Conditions/advice regarding County Highways – modified parking layout, cycle parking facilities, scheme of highway improvement (the £5K-£6K contribution, etc.)

15.       Land contamination condition.

16.       Condition requiring 10% on-site renewable energy generation.

Application which involves County Matters and is to be determined by the County Council

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

“That the County Council be advised that the City Council has no objections to the proposal.”

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 the County Council be advised that the City Council has no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions covering the following matters being attached to any consent, as set out in the report:

1.         Landscaping scheme to be agreed and implemented.

2.         Construction work to take place only 0800 – 1800 Monday to Saturday, no working Sundays or public holidays.

3.         Appropriate action to be taken in the event of any unforeseen land contamination.

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.