Issue - meetings

Land Adjacent To 25 Crag Bank Crescent Carnforth

 

 

Meeting: 09/05/2018 - Planning Regulatory Committee (Item 157)

157 Land Adjacent To 25 Crag Bank Crescent Carnforth pdf icon PDF 190 KB

Outline application for the erection of one dwelling and creation of a new access for Mrs S Robinson

Minutes:

A5

18/00103/OUT

Outline application for the erection of one dwelling and creation of a new access for Mrs S Robinson.

Carnforth and Millhead Ward

   R

A site visit was held in respect of this item on 30th April 2018 minute 156 (2017/2018) refers.

 

Under the scheme of public participation, Ronald Nelson, Alastair Cameron and James Whelan all spoke against the application. Richard Wooldridge agent for the application spoke in support. Ward Councillors John Reynolds and Peter Yates both spoke finally against the item.

                                                                                        

It was proposed by Councillor Mel Guilding and seconded by Councillor Jon Barry:

 

“That the application be refused.”

 

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

 

Members clarified the reasons for the contrary proposal, being that, the proposed development, by virtue of its back land position, the proposed means of access and the sloping nature of the site, would fail to contribute positively to existing urban form, townscape character and the visual amenity of the area, especially given that the proposed dwelling would be situated lower than existing development and the adjacent extant consent.  As a consequence the development fails to meet the high quality design objectives set out in Paragraph 17 and Section 7 of the NPPF, saved policy E4 of the Local Plan, Policy SC5 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM35 of the Development Management DPD.

 

Upon being put to the vote, 6 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 6 against, with 2 abstentions, whereupon the 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 application be refused for the following reasons:

 

The proposed development, by virtue of its back land position, the proposed means of access and the sloping nature of the site, would fail to contribute positively to existing urban form, townscape character and the visual amenity of the area, especially given that the proposed dwelling would be situated lower than existing development and the adjacent extant consent.  As a consequence the development fails to meet the high quality design objectives set out in Paragraph 17 and Section 7 of the NPPF, saved policy E4 of the Local Plan, Policy SC5 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM35 of the Development Management DPD.