Agenda and minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 21st August, 2017 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on the 21^st August 2017 were signed by the Vice-Chairman as a correct record.

That, in accordance with Section 100(B)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the Chairman had agreed with an item of urgent business. The reason being that the Planning Manager deemed it imperative that Members were advised of the following information before consideration of any further items on the agenda and subsequent agendas.

The Committee considered an oral report of the Planning Manager to inform the Committee of a recent case in South Cambridgeshire. This involved a planning application which Members approved against Officer’s recommendation. The case was challenged by a local resident who disagreed with the decision based on several factors. The High Court ultimately quashed the decision of the Committee and refused the application. This was solely a result of the decision being agreed without providing reasons for doing so.

The Planning Manager outlined that Members must give clear reasons for overturning Officer’s recommendations in future, which would then be set out clearly in the minutes, to avoid legal challenge such as that outlined in the recent South Cambridgeshire case.

Resolved:

That the oral report from the Planning Manager be noted.

To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda. 

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting). 

Whilst not a legal requirement, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9 and in the interests of clarity and transparency, Members should declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, at this point in the meeting. 

In accordance with Part B Section 2 of the Code Of Conduct, Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any other interests as defined in paragraphs 8(1) or 9(2) of the Code of Conduct. 

Councillors June Ashworth, Ian Clift and Claire Cozler all declared an interest in item A5 17/00534FUL Aldi, Marine Road West, Morecambe. The reason being that they are all Members of Morecambe Town Council but all stated that they have had no prior involvement with the application.

Councillor Margaret Pattison also declared an interest in item A5 17/00534FUL Aldi, Marine Road West, Morecambe. The reasons being that she is: a Member of Morecambe Town Council Planning Committee; Yorkshire Dales National Park Planning Committee; Lancashire County Council Development and Control Committee and is a County Councillor for Morecambe Central. Councillor Pattison also stated that she had been lobbied by a local business regarding the application. Councillor Pattison stated that she would be considering the application with an open mind.

Councillor Dave Brookes declared an interest in item A9 17/00643/FUL Green Dragon Hotel, 54 Main Road, Galgate. The reason being that the applicant is a new neighbour of his and he had previously assisted the applicant with casework at the application property.

A site visit was held in respect of the following applications:

The following Members were present at the site visit, which took place on Monday 11^th September 2017:

Councillors Abbott Bryning, Ian Clift, Claire Cozler, Mel Guilding, Helen Helme, Jane Parkinson, Robert Redfern, Sylvia Rogerson and Malcolm Thomas.

Officers in Attendance:

Andrew Drummond – Development Manager (Planning Applications)

Eleanor Fawcett – Planning Officer

Tessa Mott – Democratic Support Officer

Under the scheme of public participation, David Croxall representative for Morecambe Town Council spoke against the application. Stuart Parks from Aldi Stores Ltd the applicant spoke in support.

It was proposed by Councillor Susan Sykes and seconded by Councillor Robert Redfern:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 13 Members voted in favour of the application and 2 against, whereupon the Vice-Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

A site visit was held in respect of this item on 11^th September 2017 minute 55 (2017/2018) refers.

Under the scheme of public participation, Councillor Peter Yates spoke in favour of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Susan Sykes and seconded by Councillor Jane Parkinson:

“That the application be approved.”

(The proposal was contrary to the case officer’s recommendation that the application be refused).

Members clarified the reasons for the proposal, being that: this was a sympathetic development which would tidy up a brown field site and commercial development in the countryside would create jobs and support the rural economy.

Upon being put to the vote, 9 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 6 against, whereupon the Vice-Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning permission be granted and subject to the following conditions:

1.      Standard timescale.

2.      Plans.

3.      Contamination.

4.      Foul and surface water drainage.

5.      Finished floor and ground levels.

6.      All materials.

7.      External lighting.

8.      Landscaping scheme (notwithstanding details submitted).

9.      Provision and maintenance of visibility splays.

10.   Creation of parking/turning prior to first use.

11.   Hours of operation including deliveries (0800-1800 Mon to Fri and 0800-1400 Sat only).

12.   Hours of demolition and construction (0800-1800 Mon to Fri and 0800-1400 Sat only).

13.   Retained as 8 separate B1(c)/B8 units (PD rights removed).

14.   Development in accordance with Arboricultural Implications Assessment, including Tree Protection Measures.

15.   No external storage, including bins.

Councillor Andrew Kay left the room at this point and returned during the officer presentation of the following item.

A site visit was held in respect of this item on 11^th September 2017 minute 55 (2017/2018) refers.

It was proposed by Councillor Claire Cozler and seconded by Councillor Sheila Denwood:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 7 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 7 against and 1 abstention, whereupon the Vice-Chairman, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.2, used her casting vote and declared the proposal to be lost by virtue of her casting vote.

It was then proposed by Councillor Jane Parkinson and seconded by Councillor Susan Sykes:

“That the application be approved.”

(The proposal was contrary to the case officer’s recommendation that the application be refused).

Members clarified the reason for the contrary proposal, being that, the need for rural housing overrides the other material considerations arising from national and local policy in the context of this application.

Upon being put to the vote, 7 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 7 against and 1 abstention, whereupon the Vice-Chairman, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.2, used her casting vote and declared the proposal to be carried by virtue of her casting vote.

Resolved:

That the variation to the legal agreement to remove holiday-let restrictions on cottages be granted.

The meeting adjourned at 12:45pm and reconvened at 13:15pm.

Councillor Jon Barry left the room at this point and did not return to the meeting.

A site visit was held in respect of this site location on 27^th March 2017 minute 156 (2016/2017) refers.

It was proposed by Councillor Margaret Pattison and seconded by Councillor Sheila Denwood:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Members voted in favour and 2 against, whereupon the Vice-Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Paragraph B of the Third Schedule of the legal agreement attached to the outline planning permission 14/00270/OUT be removed.

It was proposed by Councillor Sylvia Rogerson and seconded by Councillor June Ashworth:

“That the application be approved in principle and delegated back to officers to refuse if amended plans are not submitted.”

(This was contrary to the officer’s recommendation of refusal).

Member’s decided upon the contrary proposal following a discussion regarding the possibility of amended plans which would potentially overcome flaws of the application.  

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

Resolved:

That the application be approved in principle subject to the appropriate conditions and delegated back to Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) to refuse the application for the reasons outline in the report if amended plans are not submitted.

Report of the Democratic Services Manager

The Committee considered a report of the Democratic Services Manager to enable the Committee to express a view on increasing the time limit for Ward Councillors to address the Committee from three minutes to five minutes.

The Planning Manager presented the report and explained to Members the implications of increasing the time limit for Ward Councillors. Reference was also made to the Planning Advisory Service (part of the Local Government Association) guidance stating that ‘in the interests of equity, the time allowed for (public) presentations for and against the development should be the same’. This would mean that if the time limit was increased to five minutes for Ward Councillors, then it would be prudent to also increase every speaker’s time limit to five minutes.

Members discussed the matter and were concerned that increasing time limits of any kind would lengthen meetings that are already very long by nature and as a result of there often being several public speakers. It was also noted that in comparison to other local authorities, Lancaster City Council has a liberal approach to public speakers at Planning Committee.

It was proposed by Councillor Sheila Denwood and seconded by Councillor Dave Brookes:

“That, it be recommended to Council Business Committee that the time limit for Ward Councillors to speak at Planning Committee remain at three minutes.”

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

Resolved:

That, it be recommended to Council Business Committee that the time limit for Ward Councillors to speak at Planning Committee remain at three minutes.

The Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions to Officers.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.