Agenda and minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 15 October, 2018 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 15^th October 2018 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

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 Helen Helme declared an interest in item A11 18/00889/PLDC Woodlands, Garstang Road, Cockerham. The reason being that she is the applicant.

The application was deferred for consideration at a future meeting.

APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

A site visit was held in respect of this site location on 18^th June 2018 minute 16 (2018/2019) refers.

It was proposed by Councillor Carla Brayshaw and seconded by Councillor Helen Helme:

“That the application be deferred to enable further legal advice to be sought by Officers.”

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

At this point, Andrew Drummond declared an interest as he is known to one of the public speakers and left the room. Mr Drummond returned to the meeting after the public speaking had concluded.

Under the scheme of public participation, Peter Nightingale spoke against the application and the applicant Sarah Varey spoke in support.

Resolved:

That the application be deferred to enable further legal advice to be sought by Officers.

That, in accordance with Section 100(B)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the Chairman had agreed with an item of urgent business. The reason being that the Development Manager deemed it imperative that Members were advised of the following information before consideration of any further items on the agenda and subsequent agendas.

The Committee considered an oral report of the Development Manager to inform the Committee of a consultation published by Government on 26^th October 2018, which is due to close on 7^th December 2018. The consultation was regarding changes to planning policy and guidance including the standard method for assessing local housing need.

The Development Manager outlined that the consultation paper mainly addresses the issue of housing land supply by seeking to amend the standard methodology for calculating local housing need.  Government is seeking to make a number of short term amendments including using 2014 based data for the demographic baseline for assessment of local housing need, not the 2016 projections from the Office of National Statistics, and ensuring that lower numbers through the 2016 based projections do not qualify as exceptional circumstances that justify a departure from the standard methodology.  In parallel government is seeking to amend the definition of “deliverability” as it relates to the availability of housing sites.  These changes will have an impact on the Council’s ability to demonstrate a 5 year land supply, and therefore whether the “tilted balance” is applied or not in decision-making on applications for residential development.  Lastly, the consultation deals with an unrelated matter of appropriate assessments.  Following the European Court of Justice’s ruling on an Irish case, appropriate assessment of habitats impacts is required in plan-making and decision-making whenever there is a potential impact on a habitats site, regardless of any mitigation measures proposed.

Resolved:

That the oral report and briefing note from the Development Manager be noted.

Under the scheme of public participation, Tim Dant, Richard Follows (Representative of Dynamo, Lancaster & District Cycle Campaign Group), Matt Hodges (Representative of the charity Cycling UK) and John Butler all spoke against the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Eileen Blamire and seconded by Councillor Jane Parkinson:

“That the application be approved, and condition 4 to be amended to state that the scheme for an alternative cycle route is to be agreed prior to commencement of the development, as well as condition 16 to be amended to include dog waste bins.”

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

Resolved:

The meeting adjourned at 11:59 and reconvened at 12:06.

APPLICATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

It was proposed by Councillor Colin Hartley and seconded by Councillor Helen Helme:

“That the application be approved.”

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

Resolved:

It was proposed by Councillor Eileen Blamire and seconded by Councillor Alan Biddulph:

“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:

It was proposed by Councillor Colin Hartley and seconded by Councillor Alan Biddulph:

“That the application be approved and condition 3 regarding temporary consent be removed.”

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

Resolved:

Councillor Helen Helme had declared an interest in the following item. Councillor Helme left the meeting at this point and returned after deliberation of the item.

It was proposed by Councillor June Ashworth and seconded by Councillor Jon Barry:

“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 a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development be granted.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Manager to enable the Committee to consider a change to its delegations to Officers regarding referral of planning applications to the Committee by Councillors.

It was proposed by Councillor Carla Brayshaw and seconded by Councillor Tim Hamilton-Cox:

That the report be deferred to enable Members’ concerns to be addressed and clarified, and that the Monitoring Officer (or their representative) return to the meeting to address those concerns as listed below:

·         Increase the number of days from 14 to 21 (from the date the application appears on the planning weekly list) for Members to refer an application to Committee, to be aligned with the statutory consultation period;

·         Further consideration/justification of the need to utilise a ‘specific form’ as this may delay the process and Members might miss the deadline for requesting a referral;

·         Further consideration/justification of the need for the referral to be solely from the relevant Ward Councillor, as there were concerns that the Ward Councillor may be disinterested whilst other Non-Ward Councillors may believe that a legitimate reason exists for the application to be referred;

·         Clarification as to what constitutes a ‘legitimate reason’ for the referral request. 

·         Clarification regarding what constitutes a ‘re-submission’ so it is clear that this refers to applications of the same type that have been withdrawn or determined within the last 12 months; and

·         Clarification with Democratic Services’ arrangements whereby a Member speaking on one item has to exclude themselves from the whole agenda and not simply that item they are speaking on.

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

Resolved:

That the report be deferred to enable Members’ concerns to be addressed and clarified, and that the Monitoring Officer (or their representative) return to the meeting to address those concerns as listed above.

Members received the Quarterly Planning Reports from the Development Management Services.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

The Planning Manager submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions to Officers.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.