Agenda item

Outline planning application for the demolition of Low Hill House and the erection of up to 644 dwellings (Use Class C3), a local centre (Use Class E) of no more than 280sq m internal floorspace, a community hall (Use Class F2) of no more than 150sq m internal floorspace, public open spaces including equipped children's play areas, land re-grading, recreational routes, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems and creation of vehicular access from Bailrigg Lane and Hala Hill to the North.

A site visit was held in respect of this application on Monday 10^th July 2023 by Councillors Louise Belcher, Dave Brookes, Keith Budden, Martin Gawith, Alan Greenwell, Sally Maddocks, Joyce Pritchard and Robert Redfern. In attendance was the Service Manager – Development Management Mark Potts.

Under the scheme of public participation, residents Mary Breakell, Belinda Nixie, John Perrott, Mark Salisbury, Barbara Walker and Ward Councillor Sophie Maddocks all spoke against the application. No applicant or agent was present to reply.

It was proposed by Councillor Robert Redfern and seconded by Councillor Sally Maddocks:

“That the application be refused for the following reason:

The site is located within the Broad Area of Growth within the Local Plan in relation to the Garden Village. The proposal would undermine the integrated and co-ordinated approach in providing the infrastructure requirement to support the level of development proposed. Given it is important that necessary infrastructure which is both local and strategic in nature is delivered in the right place, at the right time, there is no certainty that the transport infrastructure would come forward to support the level of housing sought, and currently based on the full quantum of development this would create a safety concern on the Strategic Road Network. The imposition of planning conditions to secure such improvements or establish the level of development that can come forward without infrastructure upgrades are not considered appropriate, and as such the application would fail to comply with the relevant Growth Principles in SG1. The proposal therefore fails to satisfy the criteria which allows for development to be brought forward at this time and thereby would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Section 8 and 9, Policies SP9, SP10, SG1 and SG3 of the Strategic Policies and Land Allocations Development Plan Document and Policies, DM57, DM58, DM60, DM61 and DM63 of the Review of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

and for reasons 2, 3, and 4 as set out in the Committee Report.”

Upon being put to the vote, 13 Councillors voted in favour of the proposal with none against and 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to have been carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reason:

The site is located within the Broad Area of Growth within the Local Plan in relation to the Garden Village. The proposal would undermine the integrated and co-ordinated approach in providing the infrastructure requirement to support the level of development proposed. Given it is important that necessary infrastructure which is both local and strategic in nature is delivered in the right place, at the right time, there is no certainty that the transport infrastructure would come forward to support the level of housing sought, and currently based on the full quantum of development this would create a safety concern on the Strategic Road Network.    The imposition of planning conditions to secure such improvements or establish the level of development that can come forward without infrastructure upgrades are not considered appropriate, and as such the application would fail to comply with the relevant Growth Principles in SG1. The proposal therefore fails to satisfy the criteria which allows for development to be brought forward at this time and thereby would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Section 8 and 9, Policies SP9, SP10, SG1 and SG3 of the Strategic Policies and Land Allocations Development Plan Document and Policies, DM57, DM58, DM60, DM61 and DM63 of the Review of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

and for reasons 2, 3, and 4 as set out in the Committee Report:

2.     The purpose of policy SG1 is to deliver housing in the Broad Location for Growth, which focuses on high quality development that carefully balances housing and employment requirements, whilst maintaining strong and embedded environmental and high-quality design objectives. This is an outline application, which only seeks full permission for the access and not the layout, scale or appearance of the development.  However, it is difficult to categorically conclude that that the number of dwellings proposed and the constraints within the site would allow for a high-quality design and overall sense of place to be created.  The unique topographical features of the site are the key drivers in dictating how a site would be laid out, the future orientation of buildings and routes, drive sustainable water management and help establish a planting and an energy and noise mitigation strategy. The application does not talk of the distinctiveness and innovation which does not give confidence that the high bar of design of SG1 would be achieved. Whilst there are factors that weigh in favour of the development, they do not outweigh the failure to meet the Key Growth Principles in SG1 to secure high-quality urban design. As a result, the proposed development would be contrary to Lancaster Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD Policy SG1, Lancaster Review of the Development Management DPD Policy 29, aims and objectives of the NPPF in particular Section 12.

3.     The southeast area of the application site is 700 metres of a commercial wind turbine. The proposal would introduce a form of residential development within the area which is identified to being the most likely affected by shadow flicker.   The Shadow Flicker Technical Note (SFTN) and Shadow Flicker Impact Assessment (SFIA) accompanying the application identifies that the turbine has the option of being turned off and advocates that layout design, installation of window blinds and planting of additional trees and bushes are the main safeguarding measures to protect the amenity of future occupiers. This is considered to be inadequate to demonstrate that the safeguarding measures would be sufficient to protect future occupiers in the southeast parcel of land taking into account position and casting shadows.   Furthermore, the SFTN and SFIA does not take into account the future operation of the turbine and how it might be affected by the intermittent switching off to address any future complaints which may arise.   There is insufficient information to demonstrate the turbine will be able to operate during the majority of optimum times given the frequency of periods of inactivity to overcome any potential future complaints. Given the turbine’s purpose contributes to a lower carbon environment the effect on the operation would at times be at odds with the principles of the Council’s Climate Emergency.   As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy SG1 of the Strategic Policies and Land Allocations Development Plan Document and Policy DM29 of the Review of the Development Management Development Plan Document the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Section 15.

4.     The application site is within Flood zones 1, 2 and 3. The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment which identifies that the site is subject to other forms of flood risk, namely fluvial, ground water, surface water, from sewer/mains and infrastructure failure. The applicant has failed to demonstrate within the application that there to be sequentially acceptable sites which are not subject to a risk of flooding to enable the Local Planning Authority to reach a view if there are no areas with the lowest risk of flooding in which to steer new development towards. As such the proposed development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Development Management (DM) DPD Policy DM33 and Strategic Policies and Land Allocations (SPLA) DPD Policy SG1.