Agenda and minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 17^th August  2020 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 17^th August 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 Paul Anderton declared an interest in agenda item A7: 20/00720/FUL Erection of a single storey rear extension, at 49 Bare Avenue, Morecambe. The reason being that he knew the applicants Mr & Mrs Jimenez professionally. Councillor Anderton stated that he would play no part in the discussion of the application nor would he participate in the vote.

There were no other declarations of interest.

Outline application for the demolition of existing agricultural buildings, erection of 2 holiday cottages, installation of package treatment plant and associated access.

It was proposed by Councillor Robert Redfern and seconded by Councillor Dave Brookes:

“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, 3 voted against, and none abstained, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.      The site is located within the open countryside, separated from key services and facilities and as such is considered to be unsustainable in terms of its location with occupants reliant on the private car. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Section 5, and Policies DM1 and DM60 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

2.      It has not been demonstrated that the development would enhance or maintain the vitality of the local community, or help sustain services in nearby settlements, and there has been no exceptional justification provided to support the creation of 2 holiday cottages in an unsustainable location. As a consequence, the proposal fails to accord with Development Management Development Plan Document Policies DM1, DM23, DM47, DM48, DM49 and DM60 and National Planning Policy Framework Sections 2, 5 and 9.

3.      The proposal would harm the visual amenity of the area, and result in urbanisation in the landscape, through the introduction of a built form of development that would appear as an overly conspicuous and discordant feature, that would visually intrude within, and cause harm to the surrounding tranquil landscape. The proposal is therefore found to be contrary to the aims and objectives of Section 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM46 of the Development Management DPD.

4.      Insufficient information has been provided to show how the site would manage surface water associated with the development, and therefore could lead to flooding both on, and off the site. On this basis, the proposal is considered to contradict Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies DM34 and DM36 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

Change of use of a shop (A1) to dwelling (C3), erection of single storey extensions to the side and rear, construction of a ramp to the front, installation of replacement window and replacement of a door with a window (pursuant to the variation of condition 2 of 18/01229/FUL to amend the approved plans).

It was proposed by Councillor Peter Yates 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 subject to the following conditions:

1.    Development to commence by 11 December 2021.

2.    Development to accord to approved plans.

Erection of a single storey rear extension.

It was proposed by Councillor Mel Guilding 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 12 Councillors voted in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chair 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 plans.

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.