Agenda and minutes

To appoint a Vice-Chair for the duration of the 2022-23 municipal year.

In the absence of the Chair, the Clerk requested nominations for the position of Vice-Chair of the Planning Regulatory Committee for the municipal year 2022-2023.

It was proposed by Councillor Tim Dant and seconded by Councillor Kevin Frea that Councillor Dave Brookes be appointed to the position of Vice-Chair of the Planning Regulatory Committee for the municipal year 2022-2023.

It was proposed by Councillor Peter Yates and seconded by Councillor Malcolm Thomas that Councillor Keith Budden be appointed to the position of Vice-Chair of the Planning Regulatory Committee for the municipal year 2022-2023.

Upon being put to the vote, Councillor Brookes received no votes and Councillor Keith Budden received 13 votes, whereupon the Clerk declared that the proposition to appoint Councillor Keith Budden had been carried.

Resolved:

That Councillor Keith Budden be appointed to the position of Vice-Chair of the Planning Regulatory Committee for the municipal year 2022-2023.

In the absence of the Chair and the Vice-Chair, it was proposed by Councillor Tim Dant and seconded by Councillor Roger Dennison that Councillor Dave Brookes be the Chair for the meeting. With no further nominations received, the Clerk declared the proposition to be carried.

Resolved:

That Councillor Dave Brookes be the Chair for the meeting.

In the absence of the Chair for the meeting for items A10 22/00388/FUL City Lab, A11 22/00481/FUL Palatine Hall, and A12 Ryelands House following his declaration at item 5, it was proposed by Councillor Tim Dant and seconded by Councillor Colin Hartley that Councillor Roger Dennison be the Chair of the meeting for those items. With no further nominations received, the Chair for the meeting declared the proposition to be carried.

Resolved:

That Councillor Roger Dennison be the Chair for the meeting for items A10 22/00388/FUL City Lab, A11 22/00481/FUL Palatine Hall, and A12 Ryelands House.

Minutes of meeting held on 25^th April 2022 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of 25^th April 2022 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chair for the meeting.

The Chair for the meeting requested nominations for the Planning Regulatory Committee representative on the Crook O’ Lune Advisory Committee for the duration of the municipal year 2022-2023.

It was proposed by Councillor Dave Brookes and seconded by Councillor Roger Dennison that Councillor June Greenwell be appointed as the Planning Regulatory Committee representative on the Crook O’ Lune Advisory Committee for the duration of the municipal year 2022-2023.

With no further nominations received, the Chair for the meeting declared the proposition to be carried.

Resolved:

That Councillor June Greenwell be appointed as the Planning Regulatory Committee representative on the Crook O’ Lune Advisory Committee for the duration of the municipal year 2022-2023.

There were no other 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 Tim Dant declared an interest in agenda item A6 22/00144/REM Land to the East of Lancaster Road and North of Willey Lane Cockerham. The reason being that he is a member of the Lune Valley Rural Housing Association Board which had explored the Cockerham proposal. Councillor Dant stated that he would be viewing the application fairly and with an open mind.

Councillors Dave Brookes and Kevin Frea each declared an interest in agenda item A10 22/00388/FUL City Lab, 6 Dalton Square, Lancaster. The reason being that each of them were members of the Cabinet of Lancaster City Council and this item had been previously discussed at Cabinet. Consequently, both Councillors would recuse themselves from the meeting for the duration of consideration of this item.

Councillors Dave Brookes and Kevin Frea each declared an interest in agenda item A11 22/00481/FUL Lancaster City Council, Palatine Hall, Dalton Square, Lancaster. The reason being that each of them were members of the Cabinet of Lancaster City Council and this item had been previously discussed at Cabinet. Consequently, both Councillors would recuse themselves from the meeting for the duration of consideration of this item.

Councillors Dave Brookes and Kevin Frea each declared an interest in agenda item A12 22/00543/FUL Ryelands House, Owen Road, Lancaster. The reason being that each of them were members of the Cabinet of Lancaster City Council and this item had been previously discussed at Cabinet. Consequently, both Councillors would recuse themselves from the meeting for the duration of consideration of this item.

There were no other declarations of interest.

Following officer advice, it was proposed by Councillor Roger Dennison and seconded by Councillor Robert Redfern:

“That the application be deferred for further consideration of conditions and to be re-presented at a future date.”

Upon being put to the vote, all 13 Councillors voted in favour of the proposal with none against and no abstentions, whereupon the Chair for the meeting declared the proposal to have been carried.

Resolved:

That the application be deferred for further consideration of conditions and to be re-presented at a future date.

It was proposed by Councillor Geoff Knight 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, 8 Councillors voted in favour of the proposal with 4 against and 1 abstention, whereupon the Chair for the meeting declared the proposal to have been carried.

Resolved:

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

1.    Time limit for commencement.

2.    Approved plans list.

3.    Precise details and samples of materials to be submitted for approval for elevations, external treatments and boundaries.

4.    Bike sheds (remove PD for outbuildings for smaller 2-bed units).

5.    Waste collection provision.

6.    Hedging to units 8 and 16 grown to 1.8m prior to occupation.

7.    Implement parking provision, control use of parking provision and garages for parking cars and bicycles only.

8.    Implementation of landscape.

9.    Regraded land from site material only and grass seeded.

10.  Obscure glaze side window facing neighbours.

11.  Removal of permitted development rights.

It was proposed by Councillor Roger Dennison and seconded by Councillor Malcolm Thomas:

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

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Councillors voted in favour of the proposal with none against and 1 abstention, whereupon the Chair for the meeting declared the proposal to have been carried.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report and subject to a Section 106 to secure:

·         Linked to the outline planning permission 19/01223/OUT to only be developed as aggregate development to this wider housing scheme;

·         Provision of half a unit of affordable housing as a financial contribution;

·         Financial contribution to provision of secondary school places;

·         Financial contribution to off-site open space based on the needs of the village of Cockerham;

·         Management and long-term maintenance of all landscaping, unadopted roads, drainage infrastructure and on-site open space;

and subject to the following conditions:

1.    Time limit for commencement.

2.    Approved plans list.

3.    Precise details and samples of materials to be submitted for approval for elevations, external treatments and boundaries.

4.    Archaeological investigation.

5.    Energy efficiency measures, insulation.

6.    Surface water drainage scheme.

7.    Foul drainage details.

8.    EV charging.

9.    Implement parking provision, control use of parking provision and garages for parking cars and bicycles only.

10.  Ecological mitigation measures.

11.  Homeowner pack to inform future residents of recreational disturbance to Morecambe Bay.

12.  Removal of permitted development rights.

13.  Unforeseen contamination.

It was proposed by Councillor Geoff Knight and seconded by Councillor Robert Redfern:

“That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report and subject to an additional condition associated with pipeline protection.”

Upon being put to the vote, all 13 Councillors voted in favour of the proposal with none against and no abstentions, whereupon the Chair for the meeting declared the proposal to have been carried.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report and subject to an additional condition associated with pipeline protection and subject to a Section 106 to secure:

·         Linked to the outline planning permission 19/01223/OUT to only be deposit material from the adjacent site as part of this housing scheme;

and subject to the following conditions:

1.    Time limit for commencement.

2.    Approved plans list.

3.    Surface water drainage scheme.

4.    Only materials from adjacent development site, transported within the site.

5.    Grass seeded and restoration timescales.

It was proposed by Councillor Kevin Frea and seconded by Councillor Colin Hartley:

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

Upon being put to the vote, all 13 Councillors voted in favour, with none against, and no abstentions, whereupon the Chair for the meeting declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

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

1.    3 year time limit from 17 January 2020.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    Obligation entered into to provide contribution towards the Middleton Former Refinery Biological Heritage Site for ecology mitigation.

4.    Standard contaminated land condition.

5.    Construction environment management plan.

6.    Control of invasive species.

7.    Scheme for surface water drainage.

8.    Details of materials: colour and finish to containers; details of fencing; and details of surfacing.

9.    Details of external lighting.

10.  Soft landscaping scheme.

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

“That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report and then delegated back to the Head of Planning and Place to resolve outstanding issues with noise in line with the recommendation.”

Upon being put to the vote, all 11 Councillors voted in favour, with none against, and no abstentions, whereupon the Chair for the meeting declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report and then delegated back to the Head of Planning and Place to resolve outstanding issues with noise in line with the recommendation and subject to the following conditions:

1.    Time limit

2.    Approved plans

3.    Provision of noise attenuation measures

4.    Development in accordance with ASHP details

It was proposed by Councillor Robert Redfern and seconded by Councillor Geoff Knight:

“That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report and be delegated back to the Head of Planning and Place to resolve outstanding issues associated with noise and heritage / design in line with the recommendation.”

Upon being put to the vote, 9 Councillors voted in favour of the proposal with none against and 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chair for the meeting declared the proposal to have been carried.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Committee Report and be delegated back to the Head of Planning and Place to resolve outstanding issues associated with noise and heritage / design in line with the recommendation and subject to:

1.    Standard Planning Permission Timescale.

2.    Development in accordance with approved plans.

3.    Details and provision of noise attenuation measures.

Officers informed the Committee that this application had been withdrawn.

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.