Agenda and minutes
PDF 163 KBVenue: Lancaster Town Hall
Contact: Sarah Moorghen, Democratic Services: telephone (01524) 582132 or email smoorghen@lancaster.gov.uk
| No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Prior to consideration of the planning applications on the agenda the Planning Manager briefed the Committee on a judicial review that had been brought by two local authorities against recent changes to National Planning Practice Guidance, in regard to affordable housing planning contributions.
This had the effect of limiting the opportunities for local authorities to negotiate affordable housing contributions on smaller housing schemes.
Two Councils, West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council, chose to judicially review the legislative change, and on 31 July 2015, a judgement on this review was made by the High Court. The judgement determined that those parts of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), along with the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS), that reduced affordable housing thresholds to developments of ten units or less last November, were not lawful and must not be treated as a material consideration. In effect, planning applications must now be determined as if neither had been made, which takes us back to the previous position.
In making the decision, Justice Holgate concluded that the guidance contravened the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which sets a presumption in favour of the development plan. He also ruled that the consultation process had been unfair.
Following the judgment, the Government has announced that the relevant paragraphs of the NPPG will be removed and this is now reflected on the NPPG website. Accordingly, with immediate effect, developers will be unable to rely on those paragraphs in negotiations as to affordable housing and tariff style infrastructure contributions.
The Government may challenge the decision. But legal opinion is that the decision appears robust and sound and that such an appeal is unlikely to succeed. However, notwithstanding the likelihood of an appeal, any Council should now disregard the WMS and relevant parts of the NPPG when making planning decisions.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minutes Minutes of meeting held on Monday 27th July 2015 (previously circulated). Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 27th July 2015 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Items of Urgent Business authorised by the Chairman Minutes: There were no items of urgent business. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest 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 10 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.
Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Land Associated With Intack Farm, Long Dales Lane, Nether Kellet, Carnforth Erection of a 34.5 metre high wind turbine
from ground to blade tip with associated control box and
hardstanding for E J Ward & Sons Minutes:
Under the scheme of public participation, Deryck Wright, John Lupton, Paul Adrian Gee and Nick Ward spoke in opposition to the application. Tori Heaton, Agent, spoke in support of the application and Councillor Susie Charles spoke as County Councillor in opposition to the application.
It was proposed by Councillor Brookes and seconded by Councillor Brayshaw:
“That the application be approved.”
Upon being put to the vote, 9 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 4 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.
Resolved:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Land At Bowerham Lane, Lancaster, Lancashire Outline application for the erection of 20
dwellings for Messrs Huddleston Minutes:
Under the scheme of public participation, George Long and Richard Kirkman spoke in opposition to the application and Graham Sailsbury, Agent, spoke in support of the application.
It was proposed by Councillor Redfern and seconded by Councillor Denwood:
“That the application be approved.”
Upon being put to the vote, 7 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 6 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.
Resolved:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Councillor Redfern left the room at this point and returned during the presentation. Councillor Redfern did not participate in the vote. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Land Adjacent To Chipping House, Chipping Lane, Bay Horse Retrospective application for change of use of
agricultural land for the siting of mobile home for domestic use
with domestic curtilage and associated landscaping for Mr Ben
Morris Minutes:
Under the scheme of public participation, Councillor Susie Charles spoke as Ward Councillor in support of the application.
It was proposed by Councillor Helme and seconded by Councillor Thomas:
“That the application be approved.”
Upon being put to the vote, 5 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 7 against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.
It was proposed by Councillor Blamire and seconded by Councillor Brayshaw:
“That the application be refused.”
Upon being put to the vote, 7 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 5 against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.
Resolved:
That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The site is located within the open countryside, divorced from any services and as such is not considered to be sustainable in terms of its location. It is not considered that there are any special circumstances, in this instance, to justify a new dwelling in this isolated, unsustainable location. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the Core Planning Principles and Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy SC1 of Lancaster District Core Strategy and Policies DM20 and DM42 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.
2. As a result of the siting, design and appearance of the static caravan and storage container, it is considered that the proposal does not represent a high quality design, is not in keeping with the character or appearance of the area, and will have a detrimental visual impact on the landscape in this location. The proposal does therefore not accord with the aims and objectives of the Core Planning Principles, Section 7 and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy SC5 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy, Policies DM28, DM35 and DM42 of the Development Management Development Plan Document and Saved Policy E4 of the Lancaster District Local Plan.
3. Given the close proximity of the static caravan to the agricultural contractor’s business, operated in association with the adjacent residential property, it is not considered that the proposal provides an acceptable level of amenity for the occupiers of the caravan. As such the proposal is contrary to the Core Planning Principles and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM35 of the Development Management Development Plan Document. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Land At Mossgate Park, Mossgate Park, Heysham, Lancashire Erection of 15 dwellings (Class C3) and
associated access for Mr James Carman Minutes:
The application was withdrawn prior to the Committee and no presentation took place. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Knoll, Westbourne Road, Lancaster, Lancashire Demolition of existing porch and erection of a
single storey side extension for Dr And Mrs Whittle Minutes:
It was proposed by Councillor Blamire and seconded by Councillor Brayshaw:
“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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Knoll, Westbourne Road, Lancaster, Lancashire Listed building application for the demolition
of existing porch and erection of a single storey side extension,
removal of existing and installation of new internal partition
walls, installation of windows, and erection of gates and fence for
Dr And Mrs Whittle Minutes:
It was proposed by Councillor Blamire and seconded by Councillor Brayshaw:
“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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delegated Planning Decisions Minutes: 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||