Agenda and minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 22^nd June 2020 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 22^nd June 2020 were agreed as a true record, and would be signed by the Chair at a later date.

There were no items of urgent business.

To receive declarations by Councillors of interests in respect of items on this Agenda. 

Councillors 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, Councillors 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, Councillors 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 Mandy Bannon declared an interest in agenda item A6: 20/00367/FUL White Lodge Sunnyside Lane. The reason being that she had, as Ward Councillor, some previous involvement with the residents raising objections on the matter. Councillor Bannon stated that she would not take part in the deliberations nor in the vote for this application.

Councillor Mandy Bannon declared an interest in agenda item A7: 19/01457/FUL Herons Wood Farm Conder Green. The reason being that she had, as Ward Councillor, some previous involvement with the applicant on another matter. Councillor Bannon stated that she would not take part in the deliberations nor in the vote for this application.

Councillor Dave Brookes declared an interest in agenda item A6: 20/00367/FUL White Lodge Sunnyside Lane. The reason being that he is a Trustee of the Fairfield Association which manages land close to the application site. Councillor Brookes stated that he had no pecuniary interest and would be viewing the application fairly and with an open mind.

There were no other declarations of interest.

It was proposed by Councillor Mel Guilding and seconded by Councillor Janice Hanson:

“Subject to Natural England being satisfied with the conclusions of the Appropriate Assessment and the flood risk and drainage consultees also being satisfied with the amended drainage and engineering details, together with the signing of the S106, that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the recommendation and any other conditions recommended in response to the outstanding consultation.”

Upon  being  put  to  the  vote,  8 Councillors  voted  in  favour, 1 voted against, and 2 abstained whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

Subject to Natural England being satisfied with the conclusions of the Appropriate Assessment and the flood risk and drainage consultees also being satisfied with the amended drainage and engineering details, together with the signing of the S106, that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the recommendation and any other conditions recommended in response to the outstanding consultation, and subject to the following conditions:

the completion of a S106 securing the provision of four affordable housing units, the education contribution of £96.740.64 to be used at Lancaster Central High School or Our Lady’s Catholic College, an off-site POS contribution of £65,380 towards equipped play provision and young person’s provision to be used locally, on-site amenity space and structural landscaping and the provision of an estate management company, and including:

1. Time limit (2 yrs).

2. Approved plans.

Pre-commencement

3. Development to be carried out in accordance with the Drainage Strategy and SW drainage scheme to be agreed.

Pre-commencement (above slab level)

4. Phasing of landscaping and infrastructure to be agreed.

5. Notwithstanding details submitted, external materials and samples to be agreed including external finishes to split-level housetypes.

6. Scheme for cycle storage provision and EV charging points.

Pre-occupation

7. Development in accordance with Air Quality mitigation / Travel Plan.

8. Ecology Mitigation including submission of homeowner pack.

9. Employment Skills Plan (verification stages to be submitted).

Control

10. AIA and tree protection measures to be implemented.

11. Construction Method Statement.

12. Drainage maintenance.

13. Development to be carried out in accordance with the site investigation with unforeseen contamination condition.

14. Provision of access and turning areas.

15. Provision of off-site highway works.

16. Protection of visibility splays.

17. Development in accordance with Acoustic Report and implementation of mitigation.

18. Landscaping implementation and maintenance.

19. Boundary treatments to be implemented and maintained – existing dry stone wall to be re-built.

20. Provision and protection of car parking and turning areas.

21. Removal of Permitted Development Parts 1 and 2.

Under the scheme of public participation, a Democratic Services Officer read out one group response received against the application, followed by the response of the applicant in favour of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Dave Brookes and seconded by Councillor Joyce Pritchard:

“That the application be approved subject  to the  conditions  set  out  in the  Committee Report including ensuring condition 4 relates to the existing driveway access and not the private road access to be closed off, and that the Head of Service be delegated to approve the application after the consultation period has expired subject to their being no new material planning issues raised in any further representations.”

Upon  being  put  to  the  vote,  all 10 Councillors  voted  in  favour,  whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject  to the  conditions  set  out  in the  Committee Report including ensuring condition 4 relates to the existing driveway access and not the private road access to be closed off, and that the Head of Service be delegated to approve the application after the consultation period has expired subject to their being no new material planning issues raised in any further representations, subject to the following conditions:

1.      Standard 3 Year Timescale.

2.      Approved Plans.

3.      Fence panel materials to match existing boundary treatment.

4.      Existing driveway access to be closed within 1 month of the proposed access becoming operational.

5.      Surface materials.

It was proposed by Councillor Janice Hanson and seconded by Councillor Joyce Pritchard:

“That the  application  be  approved  subject  to the  conditions  set  out  in the  Committee Report with the addition of a time limit condition and details of flood lighting to be included in condition 3.”

Upon  being  put  to  the  vote,  all 12 Councillors  voted  in  favour,  whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

1.      Time limit condition.

2.      Plans.

3.      No further works until contaminated land investigation.

4.      Details of colour and finish to walls and roof of the kennel building, extraction vents; all external surfacing materials including highway access; secured cycle storage; details of any boundary treatments, including gates, and flood lighting.

5.      Landscaping scheme.

6.      Foul and surface water drainage including details of dog waste tank.

7.      Provision and protection of visibility splays.

8.      Implemented in accordance with the details set out within the acoustic assessment.

9.      Ecology mitigation.

10.   Operated in accordance with management plan to be submitted and agreed to include maximum number of dogs on site; maximum number of dogs to be exercised outside, hours of operations.

11.   Provision of parking prior to operation.

12.   Use as boarding kennels and dog training only.

It was proposed by Councillor Tim Dant and seconded by Councillor Robert Redfern:

“That Planning Permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the Committee Report.”

Upon being put to the vote, all 13 Members voted in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be granted to vary condition 13 on approved application 19/00456/VCN subject to the following conditions (with the removal of condition 6 of 19/00456/VCN relating to development outside of bird breeding season given development has commenced):

1.      Development in accordance with approved plans.

2.      Development in accordance with approved access detail.

3.      Offsite highway works in accordance with the approved plans.

4.      Boundary treatments.

5.      Development in accordance with the approved measures within the noise mitigation document.

6.      Landscaped bund in accordance with approved documents.

7.      Development in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Implications Assessment.

8.      Development in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme.

9.      Surface water drainage scheme implementation.

10.   Foul water drainage scheme.

11.   Garages and parking to be provided in full.

12.   Finished floor levels.

13.   Approved visibility splays.

14.   Removal of Permitted Development rights.

15.   Approved building materials.

16.   Protection of the water main protection.

It was proposed by Councillor Joyce Pritchard and seconded by Councillor Janice Hanson:

“That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee Report.”

Upon  being  put  to  the  vote,  all 13 Councillors  voted  in  favour, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.      The proposal would result in a partial loss of allocated open space without sufficient justification for the quantum of development required or adequate measures to mitigate or compensate for the loss. Therefore it is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 97, saved Local Plan policy E29, Development Management DPD policies DM25 and DM26, emerging Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD Policies SC3 and SC4, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policy DM43.

2.      The proposal seeks to provide an additional 124 car parking spaces without adequate justification for this level of provision. Furthermore, it has not been supported by any adequate measures to encourage more sustainable forms of travel. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 102, 103, 108 to 111, Development Management DPD policies DM20 to DM23, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policies DM60 to DM63.

3.      The proposed layout would lead to a conflict between pedestrians and vehicles to the detriment of pedestrian safety. Therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 97, 102, 108, 110 and 127, Development Management DPD policies DM21 and DM35, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policies DM29, DM60 and DM61.

4.      The application has been submitted without any details of percolation testing, so it is not possible to assess the impacts of the proposal on surface water run-off or to assess the risk of flooding within the site or elsewhere. Therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 163, Development Management DPD policy DM39, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policies DM34.

It was proposed by Councillor Janice Hanson and seconded by Councillor Mel Guilding:

“That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee Report.”

Upon  being  put  to  the  vote,  9 Councillors  voted  in  favour,  with  1  against  and 3 abstentions, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.   The proposal seeks to substantially increase the function room floorspace and use of the site without adequately evidencing the additional trips or proposing suitable mitigation measures to accommodate the additional capacity of the site and associated increase in travel requirements. Furthermore, the application has not been supported by any adequate measures to encourage more sustainable forms of travel. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 102, 103, 108 to 111, Development Management DPD policies DM20 to DM23, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policies DM60 to DM63.

2.   The proposed external layout and location of cycle storage provision and vehicle parking spaces would lead to a conflict between pedestrians and delivery vehicles accessing the external storage area, to the detriment of pedestrian safety. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 102, 108, 110 and 127, Development Management DPD policies DM21 and DM35, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policies DM29, DM60 and DM61.

Councillors received Quarterly Planning Reports to 31 March 2020 from the Development Management service.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

Councillors received Quarterly Planning Reports to 30 June 2020 from the Development Management service.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

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

Resolved:

That the report be noted.