Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18^th December 2006 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

The following Members were present at the site visits, which took place on Monday, 15^th January 2007:

Councillors Roger Sherlock (Chairman), Abbott Bryning, Keith Budden, Anne Chapman, Sheila Denwood and Pat Quinton.  Councillor Joyce Taylor was present for the site visit to Footpath 31, Knowlys Road, Heysham only.  Councillor David Kerr was present for the site visit to Halton Mill, Mill Lane, Halton only.

Officers in Attendance:

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.

Category A Applications

APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Councillor Sheila Denwood declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, being acquainted with two of the public speakers.

Councillor Paul Woodruff declared a personal interest in the following item, as a member of Halton-with-Aughton Parish Council and remained in the room during consideration thereof.

Councillor Rogerson declared a personal interest in the following item, her spouse having dealt with the applicant in a business capacity, left the room during consideration thereof and did not vote on the item.

Reserved Matters Application for the erection of an apartment block comprising of 36 two bedroom units with associated car parking and servicing for Time and Tide Properties Ltd

(Under the scheme of public participation, Bernadette Needham, Michael Holland, Peter Dew, Sue Russell, Deidre Winstanley, John Blowes and Brian Jefferson addressed the Committee as objectors to the application.  John Asplin, on behalf of the applicant, reiterated his support for the application.)

Bernadette Needham addressed the Committee as a member of Halton action group and advised Members that public consultation in the matter had been disadvantaged by confusion and lack of clarity in the planning system.  The development was being carried out contrary to the masterplan.  Construction of apartments had been undertaken when the Lancaster District Plan and Parish Plan required the site to be employment-led.  Information was needed to say that this would be the case and that the site would be marketed to attract additional interest.  Furthermore, evidence was required of the percentage of housing which would be for affordable housing/rent/shared ownership.  Since Lancaster City Council was part-landowner, there could be a temptation to bend the rules in favour of the developer.  If necessary, legal advice would be sought regarding the development and the design adopted by the developers.  An explanation of what designs were being undertaken was required from the developers.  This was an opportunity for the Committee to set standards and be squeaky clean in their judgment.

Michael Holland addressed the Committee and informed Members that he was a resident of Halton, a student at St. Martin’s College and Lancaster Infirmary, and a cyclist who cycled in the area.  Lancaster and Morecambe was one of six places in the country to be named as a ‘cycling demonstration’ town, with the intention to turn the district, including the historic village of Halton, into the ‘Cycling Capital of the North West’.  He invited the Committee to picture the monolithic construction at Halton Mill that was described as ‘mill style’, using what was described as ‘local materials’, but which presented a blot on the landscape.  The development was inappropriate and he suggested that the application be deferred until a more fitting building design had been proposed.

Peter Dew addressed the Committee and advised Members that he was retired and a member of the Halton action group.  He would like to make two points.  Firstly, he referred to the 11 conditions attached to the development referred to in the Planning Officer’s letter.  Permission should not be given at a meeting for a development as wide and varied as this one.  It was logical to grant permission after plans had been amended and not before.  The Lancaster District Plan and the Parish Plan both required the development to be employment-led.  However, residences had been constructed first.  The County Council Highways Department had referred to the level of car parking.  The occupants of the residences would have more than one car per family.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 188.

(Under the scheme of public participation, Rowland Parker, Peter Yates, Michael Rothwell  and Lesley Ann Sharples addressed the Committee as supporters of the application.  Isobel Taylor, the applicant, reiterated her support for the application.)

Rowland Parker addressed the Committee and advised Members that he could not stress strongly enough how important it was that the dance school continued.  Through no fault of the owner, she had to leave the previous premises and was struggling to find a new location.  The dance school was unique to the Carnforth area.  Carnforth did not have the same venues as Lancaster and Morecambe, and it suffered from a lack of entertainment for young people and had no youth club.  The TV programme ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ had resulted in children wanting to attend the dance school.  They were responsible children, with responsible parents.  Whilst some places were unsafe to attend at night, the dance classes took place during the day.  The dance school had been based at Carnforth for some 13 years.  He had been strongly involved with it, as a policeman in the local community.  The Committee should be keen to encourage such a facility and therefore grant the application.

Peter Yates addressed the Committee and informed Members that he operated a vehicle recovery operation and was committed to community-led projects.  He had grown up in Carnforth, and had walked to school past the Old Co-op Yard.  The vehicle recovery operation dealt with accidents and he knew of none at the Old Co-op Yard.  He suggested that road conditions were no worse than elsewhere and not bad enough to prevent the application being granted.  The school had been forced out of its previous premises and he believed that more dangers existed on Lancaster Road than the proposed location.  The dance school was an asset to the community and its young people.  There was no historical evidence to support the suggestion that the entrance road to the proposed premises was unsafe and unfit.

Michael Rothwell addressed the Committee and advised Members that he was speaking at Committee to prevent refusal of the application.  His daughter was 16 years old and had attended the school since the age of 4.  He was therefore qualified to comment.  The school used to be on Oxford Street.  There was less traffic on Kellet Road and he would be less concerned regarding turning there than on the A6.  The proposed new premises were safer than the Oxford Street ones.  Numbers in classes ranged from 1 to 10, therefore a small trickle of traffic was generated.  When his daughter was 4 years old, she had been delivered and collected from the dance school, but now travelled by bus from her school and walked the rest of the way, encountering no more danger.  Parents were capable of arranging for pupils to attend the dance school.  A balancing act between the need for the dance school  ...  view the full minutes text for item 189.

The meeting was adjourned at 12.32 p.m. for lunch.

The meeting was reconvened at 1.01 p.m.

APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Councillor Paul Woodruff declared a personal interest in the following item, as a member of Halton-with-Aughton Parish Council and remained in the room during consideration thereof.

Erection of an extension to existing stable block for Mr Barry & Mrs Jill Cragg

The application was approved, subject to the following additional condition (suitably worded):

(1)        Extra screen planting.

The application was approved, subject to the following conditions (suitably worded):

(1)            Standard Conditions

(2)            Amended Plan Condition

(3)            Materials to Match

Councillor Budden declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following items (A10 and A11), being acquainted with the applicant, left the room during consideration thereof and did not vote on the item.

Councillor Greenall declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following items (A10 and A11), being acquainted with the applicant, left the room during consideration thereof and did not vote on the item.

Councillor Taylor declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following items (A10 and A11), being acquainted with the applicant, left the room during consideration thereof and did not vote on the item.

The application was approved, subject to the following additional condition (suitably worded):

(1)            Precise details of shop front to be agreed.

The application was approved, subject to a personal condition (suitably worded) limited to Next and a Section 106 agreement to include £35,000 public transport contribution delayed for one year.

Category D Application

Construction of shared use cycleway/footway for Lancaster City Council

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.

Report of Head of Planning Services

The Head of Planning Services submitted a report, which advised that, following the introduction of the High Hedges legislation, Members had asked for a further report evaluating its impact, in particular the level of fees set by the Council on potential applicants.

Members were informed that Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 introduced a mechanism whereby the owner or occupier of a domestic property may complain to the district council about high (more than 2 metres) evergreen hedges adversely affecting the unreasonable enjoyment of their property.  The provisions had come into effect on the 1^st June 2005.  Full Council had considered the appropriate fee level at its meeting on the 12^th May 2005, and had set an initial fee of £250 for dealing with a complaint and delegated the function to the Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee, and had requested the Committee to review the fee, with a view to introducing a sliding scale of fees to help people of limited means who might wish to have a complaint dealt with by the Council and would be unable to afford the full fee.  The Committee had resolved to maintain the fee at £250 at its meeting on the 19^th September 2005, but introduced a fee of £50 for persons in receipt of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

It was reported that a further review was to have been undertaken in January 2006, but there had been very few applications and consequently little information.  There was now more data available, details of which were set out in the report.

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

“That the current level of fee for the service be maintained in recognition of the fact that it was amongst one of the lowest charges in the country and represented a subsidised service at present.”

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

Resolved:

That the current level of fee for the service be maintained in recognition of the fact that it was amongst one of the lowest charges in the country and represented a subsidised service at present.

Report of Head of Planning Services

The Head of Planning Services submitted a report to provide details of the location, condition and amenity assessment of the trees established on land at the former Kingsway bus depot, in order that an informed decision could be made as to whether serving a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was an appropriate course of action.

Members were advised that the report had been submitted to Committee because of the strong views of a Ward Member who had requested that a TPO be made in regard to two ornamental cherry trees established on land at Kingsway former bus depot.

A detailed assessment of both trees had been undertaken including:

(a)        A Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) – an inspection and assessment of tree condition undertaken from ground level;

(b)        A Tree Evaluation Method for Tree Preservation Orders (TEMPO), which was an objective and systematic method for the assessment of trees with regard to serving a Tree Preservation Order.

(c)        For the purpose of the assessment, the trees had been identified as T1 and T2.

T1 had been found to be in a condition identified as ‘poor’ and described as ‘A tree in obvious decline.  Health is significantly impaired, and is likely to deteriorate.  Life expectancy is curtailed and retention is difficult.’

T2 was found to be in a better condition, identified as ‘fair’ and described as ‘Health is satisfactory, though intervention is likely to be required.  The condition is likely to decline.  However, it can be retained for the time being without disproportionate expenditure.’

It was reported that T1 and T2 had attained a score of 12+ following the TEMPO assessment, which suggested that serving a Tree Preservation Order could be a defensible course of action.

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

“That, in the light of the age of the trees, their declining condition, severely limited life potential, and it being preferable to focus on agreeing a new tree-planting scheme that will provide a sustainable tree cover long into the future, no Tree Preservation Order be served.”

Upon being put to the vote, 13 Members voted for the proposition and 5 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That, in the light of the age of the trees, their declining condition, severely limited life potential, and it being preferable to focus on agreeing a new tree-planting scheme that will provide a sustainable tree cover long into the future, no Tree Preservation Order be served.

Members considered a report of the Head of Planning Services showing appeal statistics for January 2007.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.