Agenda and minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 2^nd February 2015 (previously circulated). 

The Minutes of the meeting held on 2^nd February 2015 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

There were no items of urgent business.

Councillor Johnson declared an interest in A8 14/01168/FUL – Queens Hotel, 34 – 36 Market Street, Carnforth - being a member of Carnforth Town Council.

Councillor Dennison declared that he had been involved as Ward Councillor when previous applications regarding 122 Broadway, Morecambe had gone to Appeal, but had not been involved in application A15 14/01243/FUL.

The Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) 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.

Applications to be dealt with by the District Council without formal consultation with the County Council.

APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Under the scheme of public participation Mr. Chris Baxter spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Andy Pepper of Persimmon Homes Lancaster, agent for the applicant, spoke in support.  Councillor Susie Charles spoke as Ward Councillor in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Johnson and seconded by Councillor Dennison:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 14 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Reserved Matters be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report, as amended and renumbered:

1.         Time limit.

2.         Approved plans list.

3.         Notwithstanding details provided, materials and samples of all external materials to be provided.

4.         Full window/door details to be provided (sectional detail showing minimum 70 mm recess), heads and sills.

5.         Full roof detailing (fascias, soffits, verge, ridge tiles and rainwater goods)

6.         Tree protection and Arboricultural Method Statement condition.

7.         Arboricultural Impact Assessment to be implemented.         

8.         Landscaping scheme to be implemented and maintained.

9.         Precise boundary details to be provided incorporating the requirements set out under condition 9 in the report.  This should also include precise details of retaining wall.

10.       Details of external lighting and surfacing to cycle link and site wide.

11.       Car parking to be provided in full before occupation and retained at all times thereafter.

12.       Garage use condition.

13.       Removal of Permitted Development rights (extensions, alternations to roof, outbuilding, hard standing to front, erection of gate, fence, enclosures).

Advice Note

Members wish to see ongoing negotiations between the developer and residents in connection with the buffer strip to the rear of Stoney Lane.

It was noted that Councillor Dennison had declared that he had been involved as Ward Councillor when previous applications regarding 122 Broadway, Morecambe had gone to Appeal, but had not been involved in the following application.

Under the scheme of public participation Mr. William Ward and Mr. Matthew Wyatt, Planning Consultant of JWPC Limited, speaking on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Wright, spoke in objection to the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Dennison and seconded by Councillor Ashworth:

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

Upon being put to the vote, 7 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 7 against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.2, used her casting vote and declared the proposal to be lost by virtue of her casting vote.

It was then proposed by Councillor Brookes and seconded by Councillor Sherlock:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 2 against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report and amended:

1.         Standard 3 year timescale.

2.         Amended plan.

3.         Development in accordance with approved plans.

4.         Obscure glazing/non opening window of south-east elevation and obscure glazing to the window of the north-west elevation.

5.         Remove all permitted development rights (including extensions, outbuildings, roof alterations).

6.         Rear boundary fence at 2 m high, details to be agreed.

APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

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

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 14 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report:

1.         Time limit.

2.         Development to be carried out in accordance with approved plans.

3.         Affordable Housing condition.

4.         Local lettings plan.

5.         Construction method statement.

6.         Construction of new access and cycle/pedestrian connection.

7.         Protection of visibility splays.

8.         Adoptable highway details required and to be implemented prior to occupation.

9.         Details of secure cycle storage to be provided and implemented prior to occupation.

10.       Provision of car parking.

11.       Off-site highway works involving alterations to the access on Blades Street and provision of two-way cycle traffic.

12.       No occupation until the approved scheme referred to in condition 11 has been constructed and completed.

13.       Condition requiring a traffic management plan for parking and speed limits within the site.

14.       Tree protection condition.

15.       Development to be carried out in accordance with Arboricultural Method Statement.

16        Tree Works schedule.

17.       Landscaping condition, including a replacement planting scheme and hard landscaping to be submitted and implemented.

18.       Maintenance regime for landscaping to be provided prior to the commencement of development.

19.       Precise details of all boundary treatments and plot enclosures including the acoustic barrier.

20.       Precise details/samples of all external materials including stonework details.

21.       Precise architectural details (windows/doors/porch/balustrades/eaves/verge/

ridge/rainwater goods).

22.       A scheme for open space provision and maintenance in perpetuity.

23.       Development to be carried out in accordance with Noise and Vibration Assessment and precise details of mitigation to be submitted and agreed.

24.       Development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy.

25.       Precise details of surface water drainage.

26.       Details of refuse storage.

27.       Development to be carried out in accordance with submitted ecological surveys/recommendations. 

And subject to the following additional conditions (suitably worded):

28.       Standard EH13 contaminated land condition.

29.       Standard EH14 contaminated land condition.

29.       Remove Permitted Development rights for all extensions, outbuildings, roof additions, alterations and domestic micro-renewables.

30.       Wheel-washing condition (prior to commencement of site activity).

Advice Note

Members wish to see ongoing negotiations between the developer and residents in connection with the buffer strip to the rear of Stoney Lane.  

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

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 14 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That, subject to the signing of a legal agreement, regarding the education contribution (previously agreed) and delegation back to officers for formal receipt of the agreed highways plan and appraisal of the amended tree protection measures, Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report, as amended and renumbered:

1.         Time limit.

2.         Amended plans list.

3.         Details of internal carriageway and connection to existing highway – roads to be built to adoptable standards.

4.         Details of any requirements to re-profile or cut the existing embankment.

5.         Off-site highway works – improvement/relocation of existing bus stop facility at Regent Caravan Park/inclusion of ghost island vehicular right turn and pedestrian refuge.

6.         Protection of visibility splays.

7.         Parking provision to be provided before occupation.

8.         Scheme for parking management (investigation of TROs or alternative management).

9.         Construction management plan.

10.       Materials and samples to be agreed.

11.       Precise details of windows/doors and their frames; dormer detail and porch canopies.

12.       Boundary details to be implemented but acoustic barrier details provided and agreed beforehand.

13.       Development to be carried out in accordance with the flood risk assessment.

14.       Finished floor levels to be provided.

15.       Surface water can drain to public sewer at restricted rate - precise details of surface water and foul water to be agreed.

16.       Noise mitigation – precise details to be provided by condition and implemented before occupation (based on submitted noise assessment and additional supporting information), including glazing and vent requirements.

17.       Tree protection – to be delegated back.

18.       In accordance with arboricultural impact assessment and arboricultural method statement.

19.       Landscaping scheme to be implemented.

20.       Landscape maintenance – to be delegated back to deal with tree-related matters.

21.       Standard EH13 contaminated land condition.

22.       Standard EH14 contaminated land condition.

23.       Ecological mitigation condition confirmed and shall be set out as per the original report.

24.       Removal of domestic Permitted Development rights and solar panels.

And subject to the following additional conditions (suitably worded):

25.       Standard EH13 contaminated land condition.

26.       Standard EH14 contaminated land condition.

27.       Wheel washing condition (prior to commencement of site activity).

It was noted that Councillor Johnson had declared an interest in A8 14/01168/FUL – Queens Hotel, 34 – 36 Market Street, Carnforth - being a member of Carnforth Town Council.

Councillor Redfern left the meeting room at this point and abstained from voting on the following matter.

It was proposed by Councillor Dennison and seconded by Councillor Sherlock:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 14 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons, as set out in the case officer’s report:

1.         It is not considered that the current scheme respects the character of the built form and its wider setting as a result of the scale, massing, height and design of the proposed building, or fully addresses safety and security.  It is therefore considered that the proposal does not represent high quality design and will not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.  As such, the development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles and Sections 7 and 12, Policy SC5 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy and policies DM31, DM32 and DM35 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

2.         The proposal fails to provide a safe and appropriate means of access to serve the development and the generation of additional traffic movements to and from the site as would be detrimental to highway safety.  As such, the development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Sections 4, and Policy DM20 Development Management Development Plan Document.

3.         The proposal does not fully take into consideration the needs of the adjacent business, particularly in terms of access and servicing, or the potential impacts on the amenity of the proposed units from the nearby commercial properties.  The proposal may therefore impact on the ability of the primary retail frontage to be maintained to the detriment of the vitality of the town centre.  It therefore conflicts with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular, the Core Planning Principles, and Policies DM1 and DM2 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.  

4.         As a result of the siting, scale and design of the proposed building, and the proximity to nearby commercial properties, it is not considered that the development will provide an acceptable level of amenity for both neighbouring and future residents of the proposed building.  The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles and Sections 7, and Policy DM35 Development Management Development Plan Document.

5.         The proposed building would cross a public sewer and, as such, would not comply with current United Utilities guidance in relation to separation distances set out within ‘Sewers for Adoption’.  The proposal would therefore not be deliverable and, as such, does not comply with paragraph 173 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

It was proposed by Councillor Sherlock and seconded by Councillor Redfern:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 2 against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report:

1.         Standard 3 year timescale.

2.         Development in accordance with approved plans.

3.         Materials (including finishes and colours) –

·         stone (including mortar, pointing and coursing);

·         windows and doors (including parking bays screens);

·         cladding;

·         shopfront glazing;

·         roof (including trims and soffits);

·         balcony floor surfacing; and

·         surfacing treatments.

4.         Details –

·         window and door setbacks;

·         internal rainwater details;

·         stone panel joint finishes;

·         floor edge trims;

·         roofing detail;

·         parapet detail; and

·         balustrade and balcony detail floor surfacing.

5.         Programme or archaeological work.

6.         Construction management plan.

7.         Reinstatement of public highway to County Council’s standards.

8.         Hours of demolition, construction and fit-out, including associated deliveries (Monday to Friday 0800-1800 and Saturday 0800-1400 only).

9.         Contaminated land conditions.

10.       Hours of deliveries (0800-2000).

11.       Travel plan.

12.       Car parking spaces – spaces 1 to 3 to be implemented prior to student accommodation being first occupied and management scheme required restricting their use for drop-off/pick-up facilities and maintenance vehicles associated with the student accommodation (including maximum stay periods, enforcement penalties and sufficient access to refuse stores retained at all times thereafter); and spaces 4 to 8 to be implemented prior to retail unit being first occupied/open for trading and management scheme required restricting their use for the retail unit’s customers only (including maximum stay periods and enforcement penalties).

13.       Delivery bay – implementation prior to retail unit being first occupied/open for trading and management scheme required restricting its use for commercial deliveries in association with the retail unit only and ensuring access/egress of vehicles occurs in forward gear.

14.       Landscaping scheme and maintenance.

15.       Cycle and refuse storage.

16.       Student accommodation only.

17.       Submission and implementation of a management regime/plan for student units.

18.       Details of energy-efficiency measures to be agreed and implemented.

19.       Scheme of noise mitigation measures.

20.       Agreed air quality mitigation measures to be implemented.

21.       CCTV.

22.       Landscaping scheme for the internal courtyard.

23.       External lighting. 

It was proposed by Councillor Sherlock and seconded by Councillor Redfern:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 13 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 2 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Listed Building Consent be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report:

1.         Standard 3 year timescale.

2.         Development in accordance with approved plans – list.

3.         Materials (including finishes and colours) –

·         stone (including mortar, pointing and coursing);

·         windows and doors (including parking bays screens);

·         cladding;

·         shopfront glazing;

·         roof (including trims and soffits);

·         balcony floor surfacing; and

·         surfacing treatments.

4.         Details –

·         window and door setbacks;

·         internal rainwater details;

·         stone panel joint finishes;

·         floor edge trims;

·         roofing detail;

·         parapet detail; and

·         balustrade and balcony detail floor surfacing.

5.         Programme or archaeological work.

6.         Construction management plan.

7.         Reinstatement of public highway to County Council’s standards.

8.         Hours of demolition, construction and fit-out, including associated deliveries (Monday to Friday 0800-1800 and Saturday 0800-1400 only).

9.         Contaminated land conditions.

Councillor Rogerson left the meeting at this point.

The meeting adjourned at 12.45 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 1.45 p.m.

Councillor Kay left the meeting at this point.

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

“That the application be approved in principle.”

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted (with subsequent referral of the decision to Natural England) subject to a legal agreement to secure:

·         Financial contribution towards the continuing maintenance and improvement of the Middleton Wood BHS

And the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report:

1.         Standard 3 year timescale.

2.         Development in accordance with approved plans.

3.         Notwithstanding plans, all materials (including finishes and colours) to be agreed.

4.         Notwithstanding plans, all boundary and surface treatments (including finishes and colours) to be agreed.

5.         Access, parking and turning facilities – loading/unloading within the on-site facilities provided only.

6.         Construction traffic management statement.

7.         Separate drainage system.

8.         Surface water drainage system and maintenance.

9.         Hours of construction (Monday to Saturday 0800-1800).

10.       Method statement for the electricity cable easement.

11.       Construction method statement including dust control and barrier fencing to protect surrounding habitat.

12.       Japanese knotweed and Montbretia management scheme.

13.       Ecological mitigation and compensatory measures.

14.       Construction environmental management plan.

15.       External lighting details.

16.       Landscaping scheme.

17.       Noise rating levels not to be exceeded at nearby identified receptors.

18.       Contamination.

19.       No external storage.

20.       No building or planting of deep rooted shrubs/trees within 3 m of the public sewer.

It was proposed by Councillor Redfern and seconded by Councillor Johnson:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 10 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 2 against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons, as set out in the case officer’s report:

1.         As a result of the works required to the access and the elevated position of the site, the proposal will be visually intrusive within the landscape and will significantly alter the nature and character of this setting which is within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB and is therefore afforded the highest level of protection.  The proposal also relates to a major development and it has not been demonstrated that it would be in the public interest.  As a consequence, the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles and Sections 3 and 11, Saved Policies E3 and E4 of the Lancaster District Local Plan, Policy SC5 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy and Policies DM14 and DM28 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

2.         The proposal fails to fully assess the impact on all trees and other vegetation within the site, which is particularly important given the sensitive location of the site within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and in close proximity to environmentally designated areas.  As such, the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Principles and Section 11, and Policy DM29 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

It was proposed by Councillor Newman-Thompson and seconded by Councillor 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 clearly carried. 

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report, as amended:

1.         Standard 3-year time limit.

2.         In accordance with approved plans.

3.         Details of windows/doors/flues/roofing/glazing to extensions, materials and finishes.

4.         Boundary details/gates to be provided, retained at all times as approved.

5.         Use condition and guest/staff accommodation to be ancillary.

6.         Private stable, leisure complex/building use only.

7.         Garage use.

8.         Off-site highway works and timetable for implementation.

9.         Visibility splays.

10.       Garages/parking to be available prior to occupation.

11.       Hours of construction.

12.       Work to be carried out in accordance with Tree Report/AMS.

13.       Landscaping details to be provided.

14.       Bat mitigation to be implemented in full.

15.       Standard contaminated land condition.

16.       No importation of soil materials unless otherwise agreed.

17.       Measures to survey and remove asbestos.

18.       Bunding of tanks.

19.       Drainage condition.

20.       Archaeology/building programme of recording and analysis.

21.       Removal of PD rights (Class E, F and G).

And subject to the following additional condition (suitably worded):

22.       Updated landscaping conditions. 

It was proposed by Councillor Newman-Thompson and seconded by Councillor 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 clearly carried.

Resolved:

That Listed Building Consent be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report:

1.         Standard 3-year time limit.

2.         In accordance with approved plans.

3.         Listed Building precise details, materials and finishes.

4.         Re-use of existing stone and samples of any new stone/slate to be agreed.

5.         Repointing details.

6.         Mortar details.

7.         Boundary details and gates.

8.         Archaeology/building recording.

It was proposed by Councillor Dennison and seconded by Councillor Brookes:

“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 clearly carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report:

1.         Standard 3 year timescale.

2.         Development to be carried out in accordance to approved.

3.         The roof of the development shall not be used as a balcony.

4.         Hours of construction (0800-1800 Monday to Friday and 0800-1400 Saturday only). 

Applications for development by a District Council.

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

“That Advertisement Consent be refused.”

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

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 1 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Advertisement Consent be refused on the grounds of visual impact, excessive scale and quantum of advertisements to be displayed within the Conservation Area.

It was proposed by Councillor Dennison and seconded by Councillor Redfern:

“That Listed Building Consent be approved in principle.”

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That, subject to referral arrangements with the National Casework Unit, Listed Building Consent be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report:

1.         Standard Listed Building time limit.

2.         Development to accord to approved plans.

3.         New gutter boards are to be preservative treated softwood with ‘penny gaps’.

4.         All external rainwater pipes and hoppers are to be painted black.

5.         Moulded cornices and string courses to be made good as specified in Longridge sandstone.

6.         Incisions to the string course on the 1783 building to include a gap between the pipes and stonework.

Councillor Ashworth left the meeting at this point.

It was proposed by Councillor Brookes and seconded by Councillor Dennison:

“That Listed Building Consent be granted in principle.”

Upon being put to the vote, 11 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That, subject to referral arrangements with the National Casework Unit, Listed Building Consent be granted, subject to the following conditions, as set out in the case officer’s report:

1.         Standard Listed Building time limit.

2.         Development to accord to approved plans.

3.         Colour of eternal vent to be beige.

The Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions to Officers.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.