Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11^th January 2010 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 Day declared a personal and prejudicial interest in A6 09/01035/FUL - Westgate Wanderers Football Field, Langridge Way, Morecambe – being the holder of 4,000 shares in Morecambe Football Club.

Councillor Dennison declared a personal interest in A6 09/01035/FUL – Westgate Wanderers Football Field, Langridge Way, Morecambe – being a subscriber to Morecambe Football Club Lottery and paying £1 per week.

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

Construction of 19 no study bedroom student accommodation building with associated car parking for Mr Andrew Stanyon

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Mr. A. Spenceley, Ken Fisher, Caroline Moorby and Stanley Florian spoke to the Committee in objection to the application.)

Mr. A. Spenceley addressed the Committee in objection to the application and advised Members that he lived directly behind the proposal and strongly objected to it.  The proposed construction would be incongruous in a quiet residential area, which he had chosen to live in precisely because it was quiet and residential.  Residents wanted to maintain their quality of life and were not averse to the previous approval for two detached houses.  He advised Committee that he had experienced student residencies and student lifestyles, when students had disturbed residents by returning from nightclubs and slamming car doors at 4 in the morning.  He worked full-time and he and other residents needed to be able to sleep.  Double parking was of concern, and he had spoken to Lancashire County Council’s Assistant Area Manager regarding this, who had said that if controls were in place, students would want to park.  The steep gradient of the access ramp and increased traffic meant that he could foresee the potential for fatal accidents.  There was no demand for the proposed accommodation in Scotforth, and none of the residents of Rays Drive wanted a hotel for students at the end of their drive. 

Ken Fisher spoke in objection to the application and advised Members that he had lived in Rays Drive for over 40 years.  It appeared that residents were inheriting something they did not want.  Adequate and appropriate student accommodation existed in other parts of Lancaster.  Residents were happy with the previous approval for two detached houses, which would meet the requirement for new-build houses in the north-west.  The local newspaper had reported the proposal as though it was a done deal, which was contrary to planning procedure.  The proposed development would be a white elephant.  Students wanted a home, not a hotel, and would prefer to be based centrally, rather than isolated.  There would be allied problems with the proposal, such as disturbance from parties and problems from increased traffic.  There had been a fatal accident in the area three years ago and the potential for future accidents would be increased.  He hoped that the site could be revisited and the representations from residents of Rays Drive would be listened to.

Caroline Moorby addressed the Committee in objection to the application and advised Members that she and her family had lived in the vicinity for ten years.  She had no objections to appropriate build on the site in keeping with a quiet cul-de-sac adjacent one of the busiest roads in Lancaster.  Residents had objections to the proposed development which she did not feel were being heard.  Her main concern was for the safety of children and she could find no reference to this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

Erection of a building consisting of a food technology department, eating area, offices and staff common room (Use Class C2) for Mr Fred Nelson

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Valerie Challen and Mrs. M. Ashton spoke in objection to the application.  Chris Edge of How Planning spoke in support.)

Valerie Challen addressed the Committee in objection to the application and thanked the Lancaster Royal Grammar School for changing their plans, so that the integrity of the boundary wall was maintained and the building moved 1.5 m away from the wall, although it would have been preferable had the distance been greater and the trees retained to soften the building.  The montage shown was misleading in terms of the proposed new building and a more accurate montage was required.  A chartered engineer had calculated the distance of the building from the wall, using trigonometry, and the calculations showed that measurements had been underestimated.  She had great regard for Lancaster Royal Grammar School.  It was essential to make sure that the proposed building was right for now and the future, as it would be necessary to live with the proposed building for some time to come.

Mrs. M. Ashton spoke in objection to the application and thanked Members for the opportunity to speak at Committee.  She advised that her home was set back and lower than Quernmore Road, and this made her lounge susceptible to being overlooked by the proposed building, which would block out 90% of the sky.  She had been surprised how developed the plans were when the notification letter from the planning authority had been received.  The hill had been excavated without residents being notified.  It was desirable that the building was in-keeping with the existing built environment.  The proposal would have a significant impact and create an eyesore.  The construction works would be hazardous due to their close proximity.  She wondered why a different location closer to the Ashton Memorial had not been chosen and why consideration of her view of the sky and trees had not been given

Chris Edge of How Planning, representing Lancaster Royal Grammar School, spoke in support of the application and advised Members that the school was looking for facilities to house a food science technology teaching area.  Food technology was a compulsory part of Key Stage 3 and additional funding had been made available to support the installation of food technology areas in schools, time-linked to the end of March 2011, which meant that £120,000 would be lost should the facility not be provided.  The proposal would replace existing Dickensian facilities and provide a food preparation and grab-and-go eating area, teaching area, storage and WC facilities, staff common room and offices.  It was not in a protected area and the 7 Silver Birch trees, which would be removed, were not protected by tree preservation order and would be replaced by 21 trees, in consultation with the Tree Protection Officer.  Members were advised regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.

APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Outline application for the redevelopment of Morecambe central promenade including retail, leisure, restaurants, cafes, commercial and creche use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1, D2) at ground floor level with residential and hotel accommodation (C1, C3) above. Extensive public realm works include a new setting for the Midland Hotel, Seaside Square, a boardwalk and Market Square for Urban Splash

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

“That the application be deferred.”

Upon being put to the vote, 16 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 3 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be deferred to enable the receipt, public consultation and consideration of amended plans, when available.

It was noted that Councillor Day had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, being the holder of 4,000 shares in Morecambe Football Club, left the room during its consideration and did not vote on the matter.

It was noted that Councillor Dennison had previously declared a personal interest in the following item, being a subscriber to Morecambe Football Club Lottery and paying £1 per week.

Revised application for the development of a football stadium and related accommodation, outdoor multi-sports area for club and community use and associated parking for Morecambe Football Club

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

“That the application be approved in principle and the final decision delegated to the Head of Planning Services.”

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

Resolved:

That the application be approved in principle and the final decision delegated to the Head of Planning Services, subject to agreement being reached with the applicant regarding noise issues, in particular the updating of the noise survey to take account of the altered stadium and match schedule.  If no agreement is reached, the application is to be returned to Committee for decision.  Any decision is also to be the subject of a S106 (legal) agreement covering:

1.         A financial contribution of £151,759 towards highway improvements.

2.         The Travel Plan and the measures therein.

3.         The Spectators Management Strategy and the measures therein.

And the following conditions, as set out in the report, as amended:

1.         Standard 3 year planning permission timescale.

2.         Development to accord with plans.

3.         At least 10% of the development’s predicted energy requirement to be provided by on-site renewable energy production.

4.         Submission of materials.

5.         Submission of details – boundary treatments (including approval by Network Rail where appropriate) and pitch/court boundaries (minimum of 3 m high ball-stop fencing).

6.         Submission of refuse storage details.

7.         Provision of CCTV.

8.         Standard landscaping condition – details required.

9.         Scheme for the protection of trees – detailed method statement will be required where underground works, excavation works or changes in levels are proposed in proximity to the protected trees and hedgerow.

10.       Retention of existing trees and hedges.

11.       Great Crested Newts – works to cease should this protected species be found on site until a qualified ecologist has surveyed the site and a mitigation/compensation strategy has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority.  Works only to re-commence thereafter.  The mitigation/compensation measures to be fully implemented within the agreed timescales set out in the strategy.

12.       Appropriate treatment/removal of invasive species, such as Himalayan Balsam.

13.       Adoptable highway details required.

14.       Provision of a minimum of 201 off-site car parking spaces within 1.5 km of the site without which the stadium cannot be used.

15.       Provision of car parking areas – as per plan.

16.       Mobility (disabled) car parking spaces.

17.       Cycle storage – details to be agreed.

18.       Motorcycle parking – details required.

19.       Protection of visibility splays – general.

20.       Wheel cleaning facilities – temporary during construction.

21.       Highway improvements – provision of access arrangements, 2 Quality bus stops, cyclepath linkages from the site to the local cycle network at Langridge Way, cyclepath linkages from Westgate into the main  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

The meeting was adjourned at 1.05 p.m. for lunch.

Councillors Dennison and Kay left the meeting at this point.

The meeting reconvened at 1.30 p.m.

Variation of condition no. 17 on approved application no 08/01129/FUL which limits the use to A1 shops (non-food) for Kempsten Ltd

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

“That consent to vary Condition 17 of Planning Permission 08/01129/FUL 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 consent to vary Condition 17 of Planning Permission 08/01129/FUL be refused for the following reason, as set out in the report:

The servicing arrangements are not adequate to support the size, type and frequency of deliveries associated with food retail, resulting in the operation of the Lancaster gyratory system in the locality being compromised and adding to existing congestion levels to the detriment of safety and convenience of all road users.

Variation of condition no. 17 on approved application no 08/01129/FUL which limits the use to A1 shops (non-food) to allow A4 use (drinking establishments) for Kempsten Ltd

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

“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 Condition 17 of Planning Permission 08/01129/FUL be varied to allow A4 use in Unit 4, subject to the following, as amended:

·         Details of chimney/flue

·         Noise assessment and control

·         Sound insulation

·         Acoustic lobby system

·         Prior approval of noisy plant etc.

·         Restriction of amplified music (0800 – 2400)

·         Scheme for odour control (cooking and food)

·         Ventilation details

·         Achieving Secured by Design for Licensed Premises

·         Installation, maintenance and operation of a closed circuit television system (CCTV) monitoring both internally and externally at the premises.

Renewal of temporary consent for a car park for a further three years for University of Cumbria

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

“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.         Temporary three year consent.

2.         Implementation of submitted Travel Plan.

Councillor Marsland left the meeting towards the end of the following item.

Erection of a new bulk store, materials handling plant and packing facility with associated raw material bunkers, weighbridge, process installation and external works for Mr Nigel Hillyer

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

“That the application be approved in principle and the final decision delegated to the Head of Planning Services.”

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 in principle and the final decision delegated to the Head of Planning Services, on expiry of late neighbour notification, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report, and deletion of condition 14:

1.         Standard Time Limit.

2.         No development shall take place on the site until the developers have signed a S106 agreement covering highway contributions to the sum of £25,000.

3.         Amended plans (relating to realignment of gantry).

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

5.         Flood risk assessment be implemented.

6.         Travel Plan to be implemented.

7.         Cycle parking to be retained at all times.

8.         Car parking areas to be retained at all times.

9.         Noise assessment and control condition.

10.       Standard contaminated land conditions.

11.       Environment Agency condition relating to ground water contamination.

12.       Hours of construction (Monday to Saturday, 0800 – 1800).

13.       Use ancillary to Carrs Billington Agricultural Limited main operations.

And to the following additional condition (suitably worded):

14.       No lighting on tower without consent from local planning authority.

Erection of a block of 4 stables for private equestrian use for Mrs Jane Reid

Resubmission of application 09/00859/CU for change of use from car showroom to A1 Non-food bulky goods retail for Mr William Mason

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

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 11 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 5 against, 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.         The proposed development is contrary to Policy SC1 of the Core Strategy, Policy DP5 and W5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, Planning Policy Statement 1 and Planning Policy Statement 4 Policy EC10 because of its unsuitable location and poor accessibility.

2.         The proposed development, by virtue of its out-of-town location is contrary to Policy ER5 of the Core Strategy and Policy W5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, which requires new retail development to be located within the existing city and town centres.

3.         The proposed development does not satisfy the sequential assessment criteria for assessing new retail development and as a consequence is contrary to PPS4 Policy EC15.

Advice Note

Encourage discussions regarding acceptable alternative uses for this site.

Councillor Brown left the meeting at this point.

Erection of a non-illuminated projecting sign for Mr J Trotman

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

“That, subject to the referral of the application to the Government Office North West, Advertisement Consent 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 the referral of the application to the Government Office North West, Advertisement Consent be approved, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         No advertisement displayed without site owner’s permission.

2.         Advertisement shall not (i) endanger any persons (ii) obscure traffic signage (iii) hinder traffic surveillance equipment.

3.         Shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair visual amenity of the site.

4.         Shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.

5.         Should the advertisement be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger public or impair visual amenity.

Listed Building application for the erection of a non-illuminated projecting sign for Mr J Trotman

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

“That, subject to referral of the application to the Government Office North West, Listed Building Consent 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 referral of the application to the Government Office North West, Listed Building Consent be approved, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the report:

1.         Works to which this consent relates must be started not later than the expiration of 3 years.

2.         In accordance with approved plans.

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.

The Head of Legal and Human Resources submitted a report with regard to enforcement action being taken by the City Council, and Members were advised orally of any updates.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

Report of Head of Planning Services

The Head of Planning Services presented a report to recommend to Members a procedure to minimise the risks of cost claims against the Council in respect of applications which are refused against officer advice and where there is a risk of costs being awarded against the Council in any subsequent appeal.

Members were advised that a costs claim had recently been awarded against the Council in respect of two planning applications, which had been refused against officer recommendation.  The related planning appeals had been allowed, and the Council was considered to have acted unreasonably in refusing the applications.

It was reported that costs claims had only been allowed in respect of public inquiries or hearings previously.  However, a legislative change now allowed costs claims to be made in respect of written representation appeals, which would lead to an increase in the number of such costs applications against the Council - essentially as 80% of appeals were considered under the written procedure.

Members were advised that Planning Inspectors were increasingly looking to Councils to produce their own detailed technical evidence where they disagreed or did not accept that provided by applicants.  It would no longer be sufficient to argue that the Council disputed the applicant’s evidence.  The Council, therefore, had to produce evidence to fully support its reasons for refusal, otherwise it would be left vulnerable to an accusation of unreasonable behaviour.

It was reported that, in order to minimise the risks of costs awards against the Council, it was suggested that a minor change to current procedures be introduced, which would give officers time to investigate the Members’ suggested reasons for refusal, and provide advice as to whether they were supportable or whether further work needed to be undertaken to ensure they could be justified on appeal.

Resolved:

That the matter be deferred to enable Members to consider the proposal further.

The Head of Planning Services advised that this would be the last meeting of the Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee for the Development Control Manager, prior to his leaving the City Council, and thanked him for his valued work and contribution at the City Council.

The Development Control Manager responded suitably.