Agenda item

Reserved Matters Application for the erection of an apartment block comprising of 36 two bedroom units with associated car parking and servicing for Time and Tide Properties Ltd

(Under the scheme of public participation, Bernadette Needham, Michael Holland, Peter Dew, Sue Russell, Deidre Winstanley, John Blowes and Brian Jefferson addressed the Committee as objectors to the application.  John Asplin, on behalf of the applicant, reiterated his support for the application.)

Bernadette Needham addressed the Committee as a member of Halton action group and advised Members that public consultation in the matter had been disadvantaged by confusion and lack of clarity in the planning system.  The development was being carried out contrary to the masterplan.  Construction of apartments had been undertaken when the Lancaster District Plan and Parish Plan required the site to be employment-led.  Information was needed to say that this would be the case and that the site would be marketed to attract additional interest.  Furthermore, evidence was required of the percentage of housing which would be for affordable housing/rent/shared ownership.  Since Lancaster City Council was part-landowner, there could be a temptation to bend the rules in favour of the developer.  If necessary, legal advice would be sought regarding the development and the design adopted by the developers.  An explanation of what designs were being undertaken was required from the developers.  This was an opportunity for the Committee to set standards and be squeaky clean in their judgment.

Michael Holland addressed the Committee and informed Members that he was a resident of Halton, a student at St. Martin’s College and Lancaster Infirmary, and a cyclist who cycled in the area.  Lancaster and Morecambe was one of six places in the country to be named as a ‘cycling demonstration’ town, with the intention to turn the district, including the historic village of Halton, into the ‘Cycling Capital of the North West’.  He invited the Committee to picture the monolithic construction at Halton Mill that was described as ‘mill style’, using what was described as ‘local materials’, but which presented a blot on the landscape.  The development was inappropriate and he suggested that the application be deferred until a more fitting building design had been proposed.

Peter Dew addressed the Committee and advised Members that he was retired and a member of the Halton action group.  He would like to make two points.  Firstly, he referred to the 11 conditions attached to the development referred to in the Planning Officer’s letter.  Permission should not be given at a meeting for a development as wide and varied as this one.  It was logical to grant permission after plans had been amended and not before.  The Lancaster District Plan and the Parish Plan both required the development to be employment-led.  However, residences had been constructed first.  The County Council Highways Department had referred to the level of car parking.  The occupants of the residences would have more than one car per family.  Add to this, the number of cars used by people visiting the properties or enjoying the countryside, and there would be a problem.  People were presently parking on the roads.  Secondly, he considered that the style of development was unsuitable for Halton, with too many 3-storey buildings.  Their appearance was bland and unattractive.  The situation called for a design more in-keeping with the history of the village.  The 3-storey blocks would ruin the view forever.  The development presented an urban scenario in the village of Halton, when a sympathetic development was required.  He asked the Committee to defer the application until all conditions were agreed.

Sue Russell addressed the Committee and informed Members that she was a resident of Halton who worked in Lancaster, and a member of the Halton action group.  The action group were not opposed to the development, just its present style.  They wanted the development to be linked in with the Lancaster District Plan.  The development should relate to Policy EC4 in its proposals for appropriate small-scale business activity.  The plans for the 3-storey build astounded her, in that such a design could be considered appropriate for the village, which was in an AONB and conservation area.  The block of flats would obstruct the view, not just for residents, but for inhabitants of Lancaster, walkers and visitors to the area, and would be urban in nature.  The housing density of the site would be appropriate to a town but, even then, would not be allowed in Lancaster.  Policy EC4, namely the business activity, would not create a huge impact on parking.  Lights left on in the new-build would create considerable light pollution at night, particularly from the high blocks.  Where would the cars owned by the occupants of the development go?  There were already traffic bottle-necks.

Deidre Winstanley addressed the Committee and advised Members that she belonged to the Halton action group.  The development was in opposition to Policy EC7 of the Local Plan, which identified the site to be employment-led.  Granting consent for inappropriate, densely populated apartment blocks would mean that the development would, instead, be residential-led.  Policy EC4 small-scale businesses would be considerably hampered by construction work.  Some of the businesses had gone and others were wanting to leave, including North West Engineering.  She did not believe that the development was in accordance with local policy.  The application should be deferred to allow more detail to be brought forward.  Legal assistance would be sought with a view to a judicial review.  The Committee had the opportunity to ensure that a suitable development evolved on what was an important natural site, one that they could be proud of.

John Blowes addressed the Committee and informed Members that he was a chartered engineer and had experience in engineering and planning matters.  It was difficult for the public to keep up with the types of development dealt with by District and Parish Councils.  When the proposals materialized, they were different to those before Committee at present.  The noise density for the development would be that of an urban area and not a rural one.  Eight businesses had left the site and others were prepared to leave.  The development was residential-led and not employment-led.  Obligations had been secured through a Section 106 agreement and matters had been delayed.  If the Committee was going to allow the employment element of the development to go, then there was a free legal support for planning aid and this would be sought, as would redress through the Local Ombudsman.

At the time of registering to speak, Parish Councillor, Brian Jefferson, had been advised to confine his comments specifically to the car parking element of the application, in view of him having addressed the Committee at its previous meeting on the 18^th December 2006.

Brian Jefferson addressed the Committee and advised Members that he had spoken at the last meeting of the Committee and was grateful for the site visit which had taken place.  Disappointingly, the Committee had not viewed the entire site, but could not have failed to notice the residents who had been present at the visit in protest at the development, some of them being aged from 60 to 80 years old.  The Parish Council considered the development to be wrong and inappropriate.  In September, all that stood in the way of the application were details of the Section 106 agreement.  Since that point, the Parish Council, representing the views of local people, had not been listened to.  The Ward Councillor had expressed his views.  Were we living in a democracy?  Would the Committee impose an aberration upon Halton or would it be brave enough to put forward a decent scheme?  He asked that a sub-committee be formed, to include the Parish Council and the developers, to move matters forward.

John Asplin, Managing Director of Time and Tide, addressed the Committee and informed Members that the company employed 12 people, 7 of whom were local to Lancaster and the Parish itself.  The details had already been put in place prior to Time and Tide acquiring the site and his involvement had been to put detail on the bones.  The “Benidorm of Lune-style” design had been endorsed by the Parish Council and the reason they went with this was because the demand was there.  The percentage of affordable housing had been set before Time and Tide came along.  The criteria had been set by the Committee.  He was keen to explain that the company did not want to discuss the design retrospectively.  There was already routine permission and he was aware of the Appeals system, which was in place for him to use as necessary.

The Committee was advised that letters in objection had been received from Carol Slinger, Clerk to Halton-with-Aughton Parish Council, and Ralph Martyn of “Out of the Woods”, one of the remaining businesses on-site.  Mr. Martyn had been unable to attend the meeting, but felt that it was important that his view be heard.  As far as he was aware, he was the only business left in the middle of the site that was completely free of the developers.  He was concerned that when the project started out it was employment-led.  Seven businesses had been driven off the site and his business had to lose two very skilled, hard to replace cabinet-makers. 

The Chairman had additionally received two further letters in objection from Mrs. Winstanley and Mrs. Jacob.

It was proposed by Councillor Sherlock and seconded by Councillor Woodruff:

“That the application be deferred until the March meeting of the Committee, to enable a working group, comprising Members, Officers, Applicants and the Parish Council, to be established to consider application details.”

Upon being put the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be deferred until the March meeting of the Committee to enable a working group, comprising Members, Officers, Applicants and the Parish Council, to be established to consider application details.