Agenda item

Outline application for development of up to 70 dwellings with public open space and associated infrastructure and creation of a new access.

A site visit was held in respect of this application on Monday 12^th June 2023 by Councillors Louise Belcher, Martin Bottoms, Dave Brookes, Claire Cozler, Roger Dennison, Alan Greenwell, John Hanson, Paul Newton, Robert Redfern, Sandra Thornberry, Sue Tyldesley and Paul Tynan. In attendance were Planning Applications Manager Mark Jackson and Principal Planning Officer Jennifer Rehman.

Under the scheme of public participation, Aldcliffe-with-Stodday Parish Councillors Tim Dant and Kevan Walton, County and City Councillor Gina Dowding, and residents William Fullerton, Christopher Greaves and John Heywood spoke against the application. Rachel Wilkinson (WCV Lancaster Ltd) responded in favour.

It was proposed by Councillor Dave Brookes and seconded by Councillor Jack Lenox:

“That the application be refused for the reason given in the Committee Report, and for the additional reason that the submitted Transport Assessment fails to provide sufficient information to fully consider and accurately assess the level of impact the development could have on the operation and safety of the local highway network and if suitable mitigation could overcome any identified impacts. Furthermore, given the existing poor pedestrian connectivity between the site and nearby local services and amenities, it is also difficult to understand how the proposal would contribute to necessary modal shifts to improve the accessibility and overall sustainability of the site.  Accordingly, the proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Section 9, and also contrary to the objectives of Policies SG3 and SP10 of the Strategic Policies and Land Allocations Development Plan Document and Policies DM60, DM61, DM63 and DM64 of the Review of the Development Management Development Plan Document.”

Upon being put to the vote, 14 Councillors voted 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 following reasons:

1.     The proposed site is located within a valued landscape, designated as an Urban Setting Landscape (USL), alongside Lancaster Canal that forms an important green space network in the district. The character of the area is open, rural, and tranquil and provides an important visual frame to the existing urban area and offers a peaceful retreat along the canal from the urban area.  The proposal for residential development fails to preserve the open nature and character of the area resulting in a significant harm to the landscape character of the site, the visual amenity of the area and the value and integrity of the canal corridor as an important green space. Consequently, the development would significantly reduce the extent and function of this valuable local landscape designation and would fail to improve the amenity and character of the canal corridor in this location. Accordingly, the proposed development is considered contrary to paragraphs 130 and 174 of the NPPF and policies SP8, EN5, SC4 and T3 or the Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD and policies DM1, DM29 and DM46 of the Review of the Development Management DPD. 

2.     The submitted Transport Assessment fails to provide sufficient information to fully consider and accurately assess the level of impact the development could have on the operation and safety of the local highway network and if suitable mitigation could overcome any identified impacts. Furthermore, given the existing poor pedestrian connectivity between the site and nearby local services and amenities, it is also difficult to understand how the proposal would contribute to necessary modal shifts to improve the accessibility and overall sustainability of the site.  Accordingly, the proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Section 9, and also contrary to the objectives of Policies SG3 and SP10 of the Strategic Policies and Land Allocations Development Plan Document and Policies DM60, DM61, DM63 and DM64 of the Review of the Development Management Development Plan Document.