Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of a detached bungalow and double garage for Mr. Lewis Bibby

Mr. Gough spoke in objection to the application, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Richardson, who resided locally, and expressed grave concerns regarding the potential for accidental or malicious damage that could be inflicted on any part of the property, fence or vehicles situated on the property as a result of people gathering or travelling along the proposed footpath route.  No such potential existed at present and the case officer had omitted to include this as a priority concern.  The opening of such a route would pose a serious threat to the safety of the people of Redruth Drive in the light of current complaints to the police regarding the existing problem of unauthorised use of motor cycles.  It was understood that the original intention was for a cycle path, which had since been reversed, but no existing footpath had been appropriately signposted before or since the construction of the northern Redruth Estate, and it appeared the whole principle was based on the possibility of passage being allowed by someone across private land.  No feasibility study had been undertaken or published with regard to any footpath or cycle path in the area, and there was no reference to inclusion of such a footpath/cycle path in the search documents for the purchase of 127 Redruth Drive and therefore no opportunity to ascertain the importance of such.  Carnforth Town Council’s letter did not indicate the acceptance or desirability of a footpath/cycle path.  The Assistant Area Manager from Lancashire County Council’s Environment Directorate had made reference to an existing permissive footpath from Redruth Drive to Grosvenor Place, which must have some sign or similar indication that it was not intended to be a right of way.  No such sign existed, nor had ever existed and, as the Assistant Area Manager resided on the Redruth Estate, he should have declared an interest in the matter to ensure fairness and transparency.  Documents had not been made known or available to the residents of Redruth Drive and an extension of time was requested in order that the documents may be sought and scrutinised, in accordance with Policy SC1 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy, Policy CE1, Lancaster District Local Plan Policy H19 and Amended Plans dated 13^th March 2009. 

Joanne Dugdale, who lived in the vicinity, spoke in objection to the application, and advised Members of her concerns for the safety of her two young children should the path be opened.  Cyclists already accessed the existing path by cutting across gardens.  Her property would look directly down on to the proposed bungalow and she was concerned that the trees at the back of the property would be felled.  She had been advised that a path would never be opened at the time her property had been purchased.

Members considered the application.

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

“That the application be deferred to enable a site visit to take place.”

Upon being put to the vote, 17 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 3 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

(1)        That the application be deferred to enable a site visit to take place.

Note

That the following matters be included in the amended report:

A)         Views of the police on the proposal with particular regard to the potential for anti-social behaviour.

B)        Information regarding the ‘official’ status of the alternative footpath -

(i)                  Is it a permissive footpath?

(ii)                How would rights of usage be established over it?

C)        Whether Carnforth Cricket Club own the remaining land over which the alternative path runs.

D)        Whether the footpath between 127 and 129 is adopted up to the fence.

E)        Amendment of description of the development to include specific reference to the completion of the footpath as part of the development.