Agenda and minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 12^th September 2022 (previously circulated). 

It was noted that the minutes that had been previously circulated had contained a date error (item 41). This had been amended, and the minutes of 12^th September 2022 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

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 Sally Maddocks, who was present only to speak as Ward Councillor to application 22/0032/FUL Land at Grid Reference E347900 N455890 Highland Brow Galgate, declared that she had a conflict of interest regarding application 22/00897/FUL Car Park Victoria Terrace Glasson Dock, and would leave the meeting when that application was considered.

There were no other declarations of interest.

Erection of 115 dwellings with associated access and landscaping.

Under the scheme of public participation Megan Pickles, Lisa Corkerry (Ellel  Parish Councillor, Galgate Flood Action Group), Barbara Walker, David Bland and Elizabeth Hutchinson all spoke against the application; Stephen Harris of Emery Planning(agent) responded in favour; followed by Ward Councillor Sally Maddocks who also spoke against.

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

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

Upon being put to the vote, Councillors voted unanimously in favour of the proposal with none against and no abstentions, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to have been carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons given in the Committee Report.

Retrospective application for the erection of 2m fencing to roadside boundary with pedestrian access gate, a vehicular access barrier and the installation of 2 electric vehicle charging points.

Under the scheme of public participation, David Maddocks (Friends of Railway Place), Rona Beswick, and Tony Young spoke against the application; and Alban Cassidy of Cassidy & Ashton (agents) responded in favour.

It was proposed by Councillor Sandra Thornberry and seconded by Councillor Roger Dennison:

“That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report.”

Upon being put to the vote, five Councillors voted in favour of the proposal with three against and six abstentions, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to have been carried.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report.

1.     Development in accordance with approved plans.

2.     Notwithstanding the details indicated on the approved plans, prior to its installation details of the electric barrier including any illumination shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved details, and retained as such at all times thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

Demolition of existing outbuildings/stores, erection of a part single, part two storey rear/side extension and construction of external ramp access.

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

“That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report.”

Upon being put to the vote, all Councillors voted unanimously in favour of the proposal with none against and no abstentions, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to have been carried.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report.

1.     Standard Planning Permission Timescale.

2.     Development in accordance with approved plans.

The Service Head for Planning and Place submitted a Schedule of Planning Applications dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions to Officers.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.