Agenda item

Change of use from Business (Class B1) to Medical Centre for patients with drug dependency problems, including needle exchange (Class D1) for Mr P Mason

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Alan Beattie, Mike Dennison, Richard Steele, Elizabeth Steele and
Councillor Evelyn Archer, Ward Councillor, spoke in opposition to the application. 

Jerry Sutton of DISC, the applicant, spoke in support.)

Alan Beattie addressed the Committee in objection to the application, and advised Members that he had lived in the Poulton Ward for over 20 years and was Honorary Secretary of Poulton Residents’ Association, who had asked him to speak at Committee on their behalf.  He asked Committee to turn down the application for several reasons, namely that it did not accord with policy objectives for Morecambe and would stigmatize the gateway to Morecambe, giving the perception of a rough and second-class place.  It would not encourage new investment or add to the environmental improvements that had taken place in Poulton.  The proposal contradicted Royal Town Planning Institute guidelines on effective community involvement and delivery through the business community.  The medical centre would be parachuted into the area by agencies from afar.  Residents had no perception of who ‘Developing Initiatives Supporting Communities’ (DISC) was, nor its predecessor ‘Lancashire Care Foundation Trust’.  During the regeneration of Poulton, local people had been encouraged to take part in decision-making and this proposal made a mockery of community involvement.

Mike Dennison spoke in objection to the application and informed Members that he was Licensee of the York Hotel, which was situated 100 yards away from the former Conservative Club.  He reported that, for the last 3 years, he had turned around a failing business with a drug dependent clientele, so that there was now a zero tolerance policy to drugs.  If patients from York Bridge Surgery came into the hotel, they were troublesome and argumentative, and this would not be tolerated.  He advised Members that he had started a petition and gathered over 100 signatures from residents on the Lancaster Road side of the area, adjacent to where he lived.  Parents had expressed concerns regarding the type of people their children would come into contact with should the proposal go ahead.  The nearby school crossing was used by at least 3 primary schools, Poulton-le-Sands, Morecambe Bay and Lancaster Road.  The off-licence situated across the road was not ideally situated and patients of the medical centre could use this and sell other things as well. The residents from the Lancaster Road side of York Bridge had said ‘no’ resoundingly to the proposal.

Richard Steele addressed the Committee in objection to the application, and advised Members that people would not choose to live close to such a facility.  He informed Committee that he would not have bought his house had he realised that such a proposal would be made.  It had been said that drug users would not congregate, but who would police the situation?  Morecambe had been spruced up to increase the number of businesses in the area.  Did Committee feel that the proposal was a good idea, being on a main route to town?  It would give a bad impression to visitors and there would be the danger of discarded needles.  It only took one needle to give a child hepatitis or aids.  A lot of drug users came from the West End so why not establish the centre there?

Elizabeth Steele spoke in objection to the proposal and advised that she was semi-retired and had lived in the south before moving locally.  It had been her dream to retire to the north and so had undertaken an extensive search, which had shown that this was an up and coming area in which to live and retire.  She was proud of the regeneration that had taken place.  She was also concerned for the people who needed help, but the medical centre should be based in a quieter area, not the entrance to Morecambe, which would lead visitors to view the town detrimentally.  She was shocked to think that she had purchased her home as a result of having been led to believe this was an up and coming area, when the proposal indicated otherwise.

Councillor Evelyn Archer spoke as Ward Councillor in objection to the application, and advised Members that, in contravention to Pathfinder status, there had been no consultation of local people on the proposal, and the views of residents had not been considered.  Over the last 7 years, millions of pounds had been spent on properties in Euston Road and houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) to create quality housing, which had resulted in families returning to the area and businesses carrying out improvements, giving visitors a positive view on entry to the town.  DISC had promised to effectively control patients’ behaviour in the Deansgate area, but there had been instances of anti-social behaviour, threats to staff at the premises and discarded needles.  Residents in Deansgate had moved, as they could not undertake works in their front garden, and their daughter had to seek medical attention when she caught her fingers on an abandoned needle.  Residents had asked how they could be sure that their children would be safe, concerned that the proposal would impact on family residences and fearful of needles being discarded in their back gardens. The lollipop man also had concerns for children’s safety.  The area was severely congested with traffic flow in a heavily populated residential area and residents’ quality of life would be further affected should the proposal go ahead.  A meeting, held at the Friends’ Meeting House, Lancaster, had found that people needed to access services close to home and access those services as and when.  Would the facility therefore be open 7 days a week?  A multi-agency approach, including the Lancaster District Community Safety Partnership, was desirable.   Government guidelines advised that an integrated system was being rolled out to prisons including community consultation.  She hoped, therefore, that this was not the sort of proposal that the Committee would agree to.

Jerry Sutton addressed the Committee in support of the application.  He advised Members that he was Chief Executive of the Inward House Project, in partnership with DISC and other local providers.  The proposal was a new contract, replacing the previous one based at Deansgate, replacing like with like and resulting in the closure of the existing premises.  It would be difficult to respond to the objections raised in detail in the allocated time-span, but the organisation had provided services from premises in Lancaster, Morecambe and Lancashire and had never experienced problems with anti-social behaviour or clients congregating outside premises.  The premise was that drug dependency treatment programmes were associated with criminal behaviour, when government research indicated otherwise.  He could understand the concerns of Poulton residents regarding anti-social behaviour and crime, but the fact was that services such as this would lead to a diminution of this kind of behaviour.

Members considered the application and the public representations.

It was proposed by Councillor Dennison and seconded by Councillor Greenall:

“That the application be deferred to enable a site visit to take place.”

Upon being put to the vote, 6 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 13 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.

There was some debate on the application.

It was then proposed by Councillor Chapman and seconded by Councillor Heath:

“That the application be approved, subject to further conditions.”

Upon being put to the vote, 8 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 9 against, with 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.

Further debate followed.

It was then proposed by Councillor Dennison and seconded by Councillor Greenall:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 9 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 9 Members against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman, using his casting vote, declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused, contrary to officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

1.         Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the use can be accommodated satisfactorily within the premises without causing harm to the character of the area, which has benefited from recent regeneration initiatives, and the amenities of local residents.

2.         The proposal would conflict with policy SC2 of the Core Strategy, as it would detract from the vitality of the centre of Morecambe in that it would encourage people with drug and alcohol dependency problems to move to the Poulton area in order to access its facilities.

3.         The proposal is contrary to policy ER2 of the Core Strategy, in that it would conflict with the City Council’s objective of regenerating central Morecambe as a visitor destination drawing on its natural and built heritage and as an office and service centre with a revived housing market.

4.         The development would conflict with the City Council’s Community Safety Strategy in that it would lead to a perception of the Poulton area as one that has an over concentration of residents and visitors with substance dependency problems.