Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19^th February 2007 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

(Under the scheme of public participation, Sarah Cleaver, Simon Cleaver, Michael Lecky-Thompson, Ann Brooks, Graham Parkinson, David Harris and Mr. Matthews addressed the Committee as objectors to the application. 

David Blades and Richard Woodford, on behalf of the applicants, reiterated their support for the application.)

Sarah Cleaver addressed the Committee and advised Members that she resided less than 400 metres from Carlow Wood.  This was the third time she had addressed the Committee.  The scale of the business, with in excess of 40,000 birds, meant that it was an industrial-style operation.  Moy Park had been granted an IPPC permit by the Environment Agency since the last planning application refusal, which had done little to protect residents, as there had been no improvement.  The foul odours, and fumes and noise from vehicular movement, continued to be as bad.  The cleaning process at the plant, using noisy power jets, was purgatory for residents, who were unable to enjoy their gardens.  The noise and odour problems had been reported numerous times to the Environment Agency, but no action had been taken to address them.  The factory was too large an operation to be sited near residential properties.  She urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Simon Cleaver addressed the Committee and informed Members that he was sure they remembered the matter previously.  The large number of people present at the meeting indicated the strength of objection and lack of trust regarding the operation.  There could be a change of use from a breeder farm to broiler production, which would result in additional odour nuisance.  This was a retrospective application in regard to three new units, which had been built without planning permission.  The conditions imposed under the Section 106 Agreement had not been adhered to.  The new sheds had been built in the wrong footprint and were larger by some considerable amount and included an extended office at the front of the site.  It was unlikely that the units could have been built in the wrong place by mistake.  This was the company’s third attempt to keep quiet about operations.  He urged the Committee to be brave and refuse the application.

Michael Lecky-Thompson addressed the Committee and advised Members that Woodman Lane was designated unsuitable for heavy vehicles and was situated in an area of special landscape.  Weight restrictions were not being applied.  When HGVs were re-routed, residents were not notified.  Heavy vehicles using the roads were not local traffic.  A move to broiler production at the business would result in an increase in traffic, which would be intolerable to residents.  The transport statement applied standard carriageway formulas, which were not applicable to a road deemed unsuitable for HGVs.  The route management was ludicrous, considering the approaches to the premises.  HGVs using Woodman Lane were damaging the hedgerows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 230.

The meeting was adjourned at 12.35 p.m. for lunch.

The meeting was reconvened at 1.15 p.m.

Councillor Quinton declared a personal interest in the following item, being a member of the Civic Society, and remained in the room during consideration thereof.

(Under the scheme of public participation, John Braithwaite (on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. G. A. Pedder), John Braithwaite, Anne Stelfox and David Howard addressed the Committee as objectors to the application.  George Mills, on behalf of the applicant, reiterated his support for the application.)

John Braithwaite addressed the Committee on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. G. A. Pedder who, he advised Members, lived in closest proximity to the proposed development.  They had not, at any stage, been assessed regarding any impact this would have on them and it was unclear how conclusions had been reached in this regard.  The construction would be a short distance from their property and of considerable height, wholly above the eaves level of their property.  The height and proximity of the building would dominate their home generally, with their living-room and bedrooms facing towards it.  The construction would block their views and affect their privacy.  The proposed development conflicted with Policy H19, which said that the conversion or adaptation of buildings to residential use would not be permitted unless criteria were met, one of these being in relation to there being no adverse effect on the amenity, which there would be for Mr. and Mrs. Pedder.

John Braithwaite addressed the Committee on behalf of the Civic Society and informed Members that the proposed development was inappropriate and in contravention of policy.  It did not improve the quality of the area and was not of a high standard of design.  Its form was massively out of context with Lancaster as a whole.  The building would have a continuous flat parapet, and would use materials which were alien to their surroundings, with garish colour-finishes.  For these, and other reasons, the construction would detrimentally affect the quality of the area.  The proposals offered poor landscaping.  The application conflicted with Policy H12 of the Local Plan and Policy E33, which reflected PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) and added to the quality of life.  The whole parapet to the facade of buildings would be lost.  The original part of the building would be overshadowed, as would the view along Caton Road.  The construction would damage the local scene.  It would be in conflict with national policy.  It did not constitute good planning and would result in a building of character which was poorer for visitors and residents.

Anne Stelfox addressed the Committee on behalf of the Civic Society and advised Members of concerns.  The Civic Society had produced an alternative scheme which would retain the local building in its entirety and reflect the style and size of local buildings, using traditional materials, in a varied roofscape.  The vista along Caton Road would be retained, rather than overshadowed.  Replacement shrubs would retain the feature visible on approach.  Detailed design drawings had been sent to the Case Officer and the applicant’s agents.  The Civic Society’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 231.

Councillor Hanson arrived at the meeting at this point.

Councillor Quinton declared a personal interest in the following item, being a member of the Civic Society, and remained in the room during consideration thereof.

Reserved Matters application for 8 storey residential development (100 units) with associated car parking and landscaping for Worksharp (Lancaster) Ltd

Councillor Chapman declared a personal interest in the following item, being acquainted with the owner of one of the businesses on-site (Out of the Woods), and remained in the room during consideration thereof.

Councillor Denwood declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, being acquainted with the public speakers, left the room during consideration thereof and did not vote on the item.

Councillor Quinton declared a personal interest in the following item, having been present at the working group meeting, 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.

Councillor 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.

Resubmission of 06/01197/REM for 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, Parish Councillor, Brian Jefferson, Bernadette Needham, Deidre Winstanley and John Blowes addressed the Committee as objectors to the application.  John Asplin, on behalf of the applicant, reiterated his support for the application.)

Parish Councillor, Brian Jefferson, addressed the Committee and advised Members that this was an opportunity for local residents to comment on the application.  The two-month period of consultation had comprised only one meeting.  The architects had indicated that there would be no compromise on the appearance of Blocks 4 and 5.  The Parish Council believed that the problem was that, as the area in question lay outside the City Council remit, it had not received appropriate consideration.  There were two crucial errors at this stage, these being that it was inappropriate that the development should be treated as a standalone site, and the styling should be a modern interpretation of the vernacular.  The Lune Valley was timeless and it was not too late to prevent Halton being subjected to this aberration, although it was too late to prevent the damage to the riverbank.  He hoped that the Committee had the commonsense to give an emphatic refusal to the application and vote against it.

Bernadette Needham addressed the Committee and informed Members that she was speaking on behalf of the Halton Mill Group.  The group had been set up in January 2007 following a meeting with the Parish Council, when more than fifty people had spoken in concern at the development taking place.  Those people had formed the group, which was voluntary and liaised with the Parish Council.  The depth of feeling with regard to the development was shown by more than 300 objections, which had been received, many in the form of individually written letters.  It was hard to untangle what was going on from Council documentation.  The North West branch of Planning Aid, who provided free, independent and professional help, advice and support on planning issues to people and communities, were involved with the group.  They had assigned a professional planning advisor to them.  The riverside walk at Halton was the core of village life and the equivalent of Williamson Park or Happy Mount Park.  The group would pursue the matter for as long as it was necessary.

Deidre Winstanley addressed the Committee and advised Members that, whilst she accepted the principle of development on-site, she wished to address the high number of residential units.  It was a question of design.  Good design was indivisible from good planning and development, which allowed people to live and work in an area.  The thirty-six city-style apartments would do little to address the needs of the community, nor would the second-home apartments.  Neither did the development address affordable/local housing or local jobs, with an over-supply of housing, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 233.

Councillor Chapman declared a personal interest in the following item, being acquainted with the owner of one of the businesses on-site (Out of the Woods), and remained in the room during consideration thereof.

Councillor Denwood declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, being acquainted with the public speakers, left the room during consideration thereof and did not vote on the item.

Councillor Quinton declared a personal interest in the following item, having been present at the working group meeting, 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.

Councillor 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.

Resubmission of application number 06/01196/REM for Reserved Matters for the erection of an apartment block comprising of 31 two and 2 one bedroom units (33 total) with associated parking and servicing for Time and Tide Properties Ltd

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

Parish Councillor, Brian Jefferson, addressed the Committee and advised Members that he had heard the arguments.  The present mess evolved from the start of matters – Time and Tide had said this previously.  When the brief had gone out, no consideration of where Halton was had been made, nor reference to the Parish Plan.  A meeting with the developer was planned for the 23^rd March.  It would be necessary to get matters right and go back to the fundamentals.  The Committee’s support was needed and he urged them to refuse the application.

Brian Needham addressed the Committee and referred them to a photograph of the site where the apartment block would be built, close to where the beautiful iron bridge across the River Lune was positioned, which represented the gateway to Halton.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application along the lines of the officer recommendation for the previous application.

Deidre Winstanley addressed the Committee and advised Members that she was mindful that it was late in the day.  The apartment block fell within a conservation area, therefore the arguments for refusal of this application were stronger.  She hoped she could trust the Committee to make the right decision again.

John Blowes addressed the Committee and urged Members to refuse the application.  Any appeal arising would be supported.

John Asplin addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant, Time and Tide Properties Ltd, and advised Members that they had made an unlawful decision previously.  Outline approval had been agreed.  Phasing of the development had not been agreed, therefore it could not be introduced.  People were attempting to make retrospective changes.  Whilst he sympathised with some of the comments, arguments had to be based upon facts, rather than emotions.  The previous decision had been foolhardy.  If taken to appeal, it was likely that Time and Tide would win.

It was moved by Councillor Woodruff and seconded by Councillor Charles:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 14 Members voted for the proposition, 2 against with 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused.

APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Councillor Greenall declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, as an employee of British Energy, left the room during consideration thereof and did not vote on the item.

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

“(1)      Control of emissions.

 (2)       Control of noise.

 (3)            Arrangements for a suitable financial contribution to be agreed and             mechanism for paying such a figure to be agreed before development             commences.”

It was proposed by Councillor Robinson and seconded by Councillor Hanson:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 6 Members voted in favour of the proposition, 11 against, with 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.

It was then proposed by Councillor Taylor and seconded by Councillor Charles:

“That the application be granted.”

Upon being put to the vote, 11 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 6 against, with 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be granted.

Councillor Gilbert declared a personal interest in the following item, as a member of the Management Company, and remained in the room during consideration thereof.

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

“Re-use of the historic cobbles at the front of the building and cleaning/making good of the stonework as per conservation request.”

Councillor Gilbert declared a personal interest in the following item, as a member of the Management Company, and remained in the room during consideration thereof.

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

“Precise siting of the building to be agreed on-site with officers before the work commences.”

Councillor Ashworth left the meeting at this point.

Agenda item No. 16 was withdrawn.

Councillor Bryning declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item, being an appointee to the Lancaster University Council and an appointee to the Court of Lancaster University. 

The application was deferred to await the final views of the Highway Agency regarding a direction in force.

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

“Details of the car parking provision to be agreed and implemented before the site is brought into use.”

Category D Application

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.

The Head of Legal and Human Resources submitted a report with regard to enforcement action being taken by the City Council.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.