Agenda and minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 27^th June, 2016 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on the 27^th June 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 Eileen Blamire, James Leyshon and Margaret Pattison all declared an interest in item A8 16/00697/FUL McDonalds Restaurant, Morecambe Road, Morecambe and A9 16/00698/ADV McDonalds Restaurant, Morecambe Road, Morecambe. The nature being that they are all Cabinet members and the land being used for development is owned by Lancaster City Council.

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 18^th July 2016:

Councillors Stuart Bateson, Dave Brookes, Mel Guilding, Sylvia Rogerson and Malcolm Thomas.

Officers in Attendance:

Andrew Drummond                –          Development Manager (Planning Applications)

Mark Potts                              –          Major Applications Officer

Robert Clarke                         –          Graduate Planner

Tessa Mott                              –          Democratic Support Officer

Councillor Roger Sherlock arrived at the meeting during the following item and did not participate in the vote.

Under the scheme of public participation, Barry Maitland spoke in objection to the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Dave Brookes and seconded by Councillor Andrew Kay:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 8 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 granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard three year timescale

2. Development in accordance with amended plans

3. Use as a single dwellinghouse - C3 use class – any other change of use must be permitted by the Local Planning Authority.

4. Obscure glazing to side elevation garage window and door

5. Retention of existing boundary treatments

6. Permeable surfacing to driveway

7. Removal of permitted development rights part 1 and 2.

8. Raise front boundary wall to 1m in height prior to occupation/development being brought into use and retained at all times thereafter.

It was proposed by Councillor Margaret Pattison and seconded by Councillor Malcolm Thomas:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 13 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That subject to the receipt of satisfactory statutory consultation responses regarding the amended plans, and the applicant entering into a Section 106, Outline Planning Permission be grantedsubject to the following conditions:

1. Standard outline condition with all matters reserved

2. Dwellings limited to 2 storeys in height

3. Offsite Highway Works – re-instatement of 2 metre footway and 4.5m drop crossings

4. Cycle/Pedestrian link along the Quay wall to be agreed.

5. Scheme for foul water to be agreed

6. Surface Water Drainage Scheme to be agreed

7. Surface Water Management Scheme

8. Construction Management Scheme

9. Standard Condition – Contamination

10. Ecology scheme to be agreed

11. Written Scheme of Investigation – Archaeology

12. Removal of Permitted Development Rights

13. Finished Floor Levels

14. Development in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment – Flood Mitigation Measures.

15. Vehicle charging point scheme

Councillor Andrew Kay left the room prior to the following item and did not return to the meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor Dave Brookes and seconded by Councillor Eileen Blamire:

“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 reason:

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 four new dwellings in this isolated, unsustainable location. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles and Section 6, Policy SC1 of Lancaster District Core Strategy and Policies DM20 and DM42 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

It was proposed by Councillor Eileen Blamire and seconded by Councillor Susie Charles:

“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 grantedsubject to the following conditions:

1.    Approved plans – RETAIN (updated to reflect amended plans including approved boundary treatment layout)

2.    Hours of construction – RETAIN

3.    Access phasing – RETAIN

4.    Off-site highway improvement works – RETAIN

5.    Travel plan implementation – RETAIN

6.    Parking provision – RETAIN

7.    Garage use restriction – RETAIN

8.    Cycle storage – RETAIN

9.    Boundary treatments – RETAIN

10.  Public open space provision – RETAIN (update to specify revised planning layout)

11.  Landscaping scheme and management plan – RETAIN

12.  Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection and Retention Plan – RETAIN

13.  Flood risk assessment – RETAIN

14.  Drainage - TBC (subject to consultation with UU and EA)

15.  Contaminated land – RETAIN (subject to consultation with Contaminated Land Officer)

16.  Imported soils – RETAIN

17.  Bunded tanks – RETAIN

18.  Permitted development rights removed – RETAIN

19.  Ecological Management Plan – RETAIN

20.  Japanese Knotweed – RETAIN

21.  Potential future cycle route connection – RETAIN (in accordance with approved plan references)

With the Committee’s agreement, the Chairman agreed to bring forward item A10 to allow members of the public who were present for this item to leave the meeting.

A site visit took place in respect of this item on 23rd May minute 5 (2016/2017) refers.

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

“That the application be refused.”

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 Planning Permission be refusedsubject to some amendments to the design the following conditions:

1. As a result of the location of the site within flood zone 3, and the location of residential accommodation on the ground floor, in particular sleeping accommodation, it is considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable risks of flooding to future occupiers of the development, which have not been adequately mitigated. As a result, the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles and Section 10 and Policy DM38 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

2. The current proposal, in particular relation to the four storey element, fails to respect the design, form, massing and scale of the adjacent buildings and, as a result of this is not considered to represent high quality urban design as advocated by the NPPF and will have a detrimental impact on the streetscene and the special character and appearance of this part of the conservation area. It is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles, Section 7 and Section 12 and Policies DM31 and DM35 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

Advice:

Members are supportive of the principle of the redevelopment of this part of the Conservation Area, especially given its proximity to the bus station, so would respectfully ask that the agent/applicant works with the Regeneration and Planning department and Environment Agency to overcome the reasons for refusal.

The meeting adjourned at 12:40pm and reconvened at 13:10pm.

With the Committee’s agreement, the chairman reordered the agenda from this point.

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

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

“That the application be approved.”

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 grantedsubject to the following conditions:

1. Standard three year timescale

2. Development in accordance with amended plans

3. Materials to match

It was proposed by Councillor Robert Redfern and seconded by Councillor Susie Charles:

“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 grantedsubject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year timescale

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

3. Amended plan condition – Jump tower dimensions, material and lighting

4. Materials to match – brickwork of extension

5 Hours of construction 8-6 Mon-Fri, 8-2 Sat

6. Floodlight Hours - 08:00 to 22:00

Councillors Eileen Blamire, James Leyshon and Margaret Pattison had all declared an interest in the following item. Councillors Eileen Blamire, James Leyshon and Margaret Pattison left the room at this point and did not return to the meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor Claire Cozler and seconded by Councillor Susie Charles:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 9 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be grantedsubject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year timescale

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

3. Arboricultural Method Statement

4. Scheme for tree/hedge protection

5. Scheme for new trees on site

6. No trees to be removed

7. Maximum public floor space 120sqm and retention of carpark provision

8. Hours of construction (Mon to Fri 0800-1800 and Sat only 0800-1400)

It was proposed by Councillor Robert Redfern and seconded by Councillor Susie Charles:

“That the application be approved.”

Upon being put to the vote, 9 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Advertisement Consent be grantedsubject to the following conditions:

1. Standard Advertisement Timescale (5 years)

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

3. Advertisement Standard Condition Number 1

4. Advertisement Standard Condition Number 2

5. Advertisement Standard Condition Number 3

6. Advertisement Standard Condition Number 4

7. Advertisement Standard Condition Number 5

8. Illumination of the signage restricted to approved store opening hours

9. Limits of the luminance of signage

Members received the Quarterly Planning Report from the Development Management Service.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

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.