Agenda and minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 31^st May, 2015 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on the 31^st May 2016 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 Margaret Pattison declared an interest in item A10 16/00504/FUL Meadowfield Bungalow, Middleton Road, Heysham, the nature being that she requested the item be brought to Committee.

Councillor Dave Brookes declared an interest in item A13 16/00053/CU Green Dragon Hotel, 54 Main Road, Galgate, the nature being that the applicant is his neighbour.

Councillor Carla Brayshaw declared an interest in item A14 16/00222/FUL Land Between 24 and 25 Hestham Crescent, Morecambe, the nature being that she is related to the applicant.

Councillor Stuart Bateson declared an interest in item A15 16/00555/LB 15 Middleton Road, Heysham, Morecambe, the nature being that he owns the property and is the applicant.

With the Committee’s agreement the Chairman moved item A14 to the end of the agenda.

APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Under the scheme of public participation, Eric Pelter spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Eileen Blamire and seconded by Councillor Helen Helme:

“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:

That Outline Planning Permission be granted (subject to signing a Section 106 Agreement) but delegated back to the Chief Officer to allow the Cumbria County Council consultation to expire and for discussions to continue regarding the relocation of the play area, subject to the following conditions;

1.         Standard outline condition with just landscaping reserved for future consideration

2.         Development in accordance with the list of approved plans

3.         Construction management scheme

4.         Tree protection plan and arboricultural method statement

5.         Standard contamination condition

6.         Access details, including visibility splay provision and protection; footpath linkages; amendment to

the boundary walls.

7.         Off-site highway works (footpath to site frontage, road markings and gateway treatment measures)

8.         Surface water drainage scheme

9.         Surface Water Management and ongoing Maintenance

10.       Four drainage scheme

11.       Notwithstanding plans, materials, including natural stone, natural slate, mortar, render, rainwater

goods, eaves/verges/ridges, doors, windows, garage doors, boundary treatments, gates, surface

treatments

12.       Parking to be provided prior to the associated development being occupied / brought into use

13.       Hours of demolition / construction (0800-1800 Mon to Fri, and 0800-1400 Sat only)

14.       Hours of operation for the retail/tea rooms (0700-1900 Mon to Sat, and 1000-1700 Sun and public

holidays

15.       Tearoom/Shop – restricting use.

16.       Removal of PD rights (Parts 1 A-G, 2 and 14)

17.       Garage use restriction

18.       Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation

19.       Maintenance of Open Space/Play Area

20.       Details of landscaping and play equipment to be submitted for consideration.

21.       Accordance with Protected Species Bat Survey and Mitigation.

APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

It was proposed by Councillor Eileen Blamire and seconded by Councillor Helen Helme:

“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:

That Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the following conditions:

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

· roof (including trims and soffits);

· surfacing treatments

· re-use of stone wall materials and samples of new stone/slate to be agreed.

4.         Details –

· window and door setbacks;

· stone panel joint finishes;

· floor edge trims;

· rainwater goods;

· roofing detail;

5.         Programme of archaeological work

6.         Hours of demolition, construction and fit-out, including associated deliveries (Mon to Fri 0800-1800 and Sat 0800-1400 only)

It was proposed by Councillor Helen Helme and seconded by Councillor Stuart Bateson:

“That the application be approved.”

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 Outline Planning Permission be granted(subject to signing a Section 106 agreement) and subject to Officers enclosing a covering letter explaining their preferred approach regarding the size and quality of open space provision. Furthermore, subject to the following conditions:

1.         Reserved Matters to be submitted and timescales for implementation.

2.         Approved Plans

3.         Details to be submitted for off-site highway works.

4.         Submission of details for the site access.

5.         Protection of visibility splays.

6.         Finished Floor levels.

7.         Development in accordance with the FRA.

8.         Submission of Surface Water drainage scheme

9.         Maintenance Programme for SUDS system

10.       Foul drainage scheme to be submitted and approved.

11.       Construction Environmental Management Plan

12.       Unforeseen contamination condition

13.       Submission of Arboricultural Method Statement, to include tree protection plan, and geocell details.

14.       Protection of existing trees on site.

15.       Scheme for ecological mitigation and enhancement.

16.       Details submitted for hard and soft landscaping.

17.       Removal of Permitted Development Rights

18.       Illustrative landscape scheme for site entrance

19.       Landscape Management

20.       Electronic vehicle points

It was proposed by Councillor Dave Brookes and seconded by Councillor Margaret Pattison:

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

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

Resolved:

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

Councillor Robert Redfern left the room prior to the following item and did not participate in the vote.

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

“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:

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         Standard 3 year timescale

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

3.         Development to be carried out in accordance with the revised site plan and the transport statement

4.         Details of secure cycle storage facilities to be submitted

5.         A Framework Travel Plan to be submitted and approved in writing prior to first use, and then implemented at all times thereafter whilst the use is operational

6.         Details of the upgrades to the property’s forecourt to the west and south of the building to be submitted.

Councillor Margaret Pattison declared an interest in the following item. Councillor Andrew Kay arrived at the meeting during the following item and did not participate in the vote.

It was proposed by Councillor Margaret Pattison and seconded by Councillor Mel Guilding:

“That the application be refused.”

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

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         Development of the site in the manner proposed will lead to a reduction in the level of car parking provision across the park home site and omission of allocated resident parking spaces to the detrimental of the amenities of the site and a number of existing residential occupiers. In the opinion of the local planning authority, the development is contrary to the aims and objectives of national planning policy guidance and polices DM22 and DM35 of the Development Management DPD which seeks to ensure the provision of a high quality choice of housing which accords with key design principles and vehicle parking provision.

It was proposed by Councillor Helen Helme and seconded by Councillor James Leyshon:

“That the application be approved.”

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

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be grantedsubject to the following conditions with the determination being delegated to the Chief Officer to enable the following S106 agreement to be drafted, signed and endorsed.

- The S106 legal agreement/Deed of Variation to provide for £6,000 to aid the assessment of the audited travel plans by the County Council.

1.         3 year time limit

2.         Development in accordance with the approved plans (General arrangement, foundation plan, external finishes, retaining wall construction, site levels, lighting arrangement, landscaping plan)

3.         Off-site highway works as approved plans

4          Off-site works to be implemented prior to occupation

5.         Agreed Travel plan to be audited and updated

6.         Developed in accordance with the agreed Car Park Management and Delivery Plan/Strategy

7.         Developed in accordance with the agreed Construction Management plan

8.         Developed in accordance with the agreed Flood Risk Assessment

9.         Developed in accordance with the agreed Ground gas and Radon Assessment

10.       Developed in accordance with the agreed Remediation Strategy and Verification Plan

11.       Developed in accordance with the agreed Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement

12.       Gross floor areas not to be increase or parking areas reduced

13.       Redundant vehicle crossing to be reinstated at the developer’s expense

14.       Development to drained on a separated system

15.       Hours of Construction

The application was withdrawn prior to the Committee and no presentation took place.

It was proposed by Councillor Helen Helme and seconded by Councillor Andrew Kay:

“That the application be refused.”

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

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be refusedfor the following reasons:

1.         The proposal will result in the conversion of the main part of the building to a large House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) without sufficient justification as to how this form of accommodation will address local housing needs and imbalances in the local housing market. It is not considered that the

scheme will provide an appropriate form of residential accommodation and is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles and Section 6, and Policies DM41 and DM44 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

2.         Insufficient evidence has been provided to justify the loss of the local facility within this rural settlement. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles and Section 8, and Policy DM49 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

3.         Insufficient information has been provided in order to assess any potential impacts on protected species, in particular bats, as a result of the works required to the loft space of the single storey element on the building to provide a means of escape in the event of flooding. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles and Section 11, and policy and DM27 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

Councillor Stuart Bateson had declared an interest in the following item. Councillor Bateson left the room at this point and returned after determination of the item.

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

“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:

That Listed Building Consent be grantedsubject to the following conditions:

1.         Standard 3 year timescale

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

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.

The Chairman, Councillor Carla Brayshaw, declared an interest in the following item. The Chairman vacated the Chair and the room during consideration of the item and did not participate in the vote.

The Vice-Chairman, Councillor Helen Helme, took the Chair.

It was proposed by Councillor Dave Brookes and seconded by Councillor Mel Guilding:

“That the application be refused.”

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

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons stated in the Case Officer’s update:

1.    By reason of the size and height of the proposed garages and their proximity to the boundary of number 25 Hestham Crescent, the proposed garages will have an overbearing and detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles and Section 7, and Policy DM35 of the Development Management DPD.

2.    Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that surface water within the site can be adequately disposed of, in particular in relation to the adjacent railway network infrastructure. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Section 10, and Policies DM35 and DM39 of the Development Management DPD.