Agenda and minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 6^th April,2018 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 6^th April 2018 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

There were no items of urgent business.

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. 

Councillor Helen Helme declared an interest in item A6 17/00944/OUT Ward Field Farm, Main Road, Galgate. The reason being that she is a member of Ellel Parish Council but stated that she would view the application with an open mind. 

Andrew Drummond – Development Manager (Planning Applications) also declared an interest in item A6 17/00944/OUT Ward Field Farm, Main Road, Galgate. The reason being that he lives in Galgate near the application site. Mr Drummond stated that he had previously had no involvement with the application.     

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 30^th April 2018:

Councillors Stuart Bateson, Carla Brayshaw, Dave Brookes, Abbott Bryning, Ian Clift, Mel Guilding, Helen Helme, Jane Parkinson, Sylvia Rogerson and Malcolm Thomas.

Officers in Attendance:

Andrew Drummond – Development Manager (Planning Applications)

Jennifer Rehman – Major Applications Planning Officer

Eleanor Fawcett – Planning Officer

Tessa Mott – Democratic Support Officer

APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICPATION

A site visit was held in respect of this item on 30^th 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.

Councillor Helen Helme had previously declared an interest in the following item.

Mr Andrew Drummond left the meeting at this point and returned after determination of the following application.

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

Under the scheme of public participation, Stephen Constantine Representative of Citizens of Lancaster Opposed to Unnecessary Development (CLOUD) and Andrew Poulter both spoke against the application. Matthew Symons agent for the application spoke in support.

It was proposed by Councillor Helen Helme 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 development would increase the risk of flooding off-site, that there would be an adverse impact on the townscape of Galgate and the extension northwards towards the proposed Bailrigg Garden Village would comprise the village character, as well as there being concerns with the effect on air quality as outlined by the objection from the air quality officer.

Upon being put to the vote, 5 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 6 against, with 3 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.

It was then proposed by Councillor Claire Cozler and seconded by Councillor Janice Hanson:

“That the application be approved.”

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:

The meeting adjourned at 12:31 and reconvened at 13:03.

Councillors Jon Barry, Helen Helme and Sylvia Rogerson left the meeting at this point and did not return.

APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICPATION

It was proposed by Councillor Robert Redfern and seconded by Councillor Eileen Blamire:

“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:

It was proposed by Councillor June Ashworth and seconded by Councillor Robert Redfern:

“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:

Listed building application for internal and external works, comprising the insertion of partition walls and demolition of internal walls, provision of new windows, construction of a single storey extension to the north and east facing elevations and demolition of the existing motel units for Tom Hill.

It was proposed by Councillor June Ashworth and seconded by Councillor Robert Redfern:

“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:

It was proposed by Councillor Jane Parkinson and seconded by Councillor Mel Guilding:

“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. Firstly, the proposal for visitor accommodation is: not located within one of the District’s urban areas or smaller settlements that is served by basic service provision; is not on a site which is allocated for such use; does not serve the needs of an existing visitor facility or attraction or located adjacent to it; and does not involve the conversion or re-use of a suitable existing rural building without significant major extensions.  It is therefore deemed to be contrary to Development Management Policy DM13. Secondly, it was stated that the development proposes to more than double the footprint of the existing stable building.  It is therefore considered that the conversion and re-use of this existing rural building for visitor accommodation is unachievable without significant major extensions, which is contrary to the provisions of Development Management Policy DM8.

Upon being put to the vote, 8 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 1 against, with 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The proposal for visitor accommodation is not located within one of the District’s urban areas or smaller settlements that is served by basic service provision, is not on a site which is allocated for such use, does not serve the needs of an existing visitor facility or attraction or located adjacent to it, and does not involve the conversion or re-use of a suitable existing rural building without significant major extensions.  It is therefore deemed to be contrary to Development Management Policy DM13.

2.    The development proposes to more than double the footprint of the existing stable building.  It is therefore considered that the conversion and re-use of this existing rural building for visitor accommodation is unachievable without significant major extensions, which is contrary to the provisions of Development Management Policy DM8.

It was proposed by Councillor Claire Cozler and seconded by Councillor Mel Guilding:

“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:

The Planning Manager submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions to Officers.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.