AGENDA ITEM:
PLANNING COMMITTEE: 8th SEPTEMBER 2005
Report of: Executive Manager (Planning & Development Services) Contact for further information: Mr J R Harrison (ext. 5132)
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ITEMS
Background Papers In accordance with Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 the background papers used in the compilation of reports relating to planning applications and other reports are listed within the text of each report and are available for inspection in the Planning Division, except for such documents as contain exempt or confidential information defined in Schedule 12A of the Act. WARD SHEET WRIGHTINGTON 1, 3 UP HOLLAND -- TARLETON -- TANHOUSE -- SKELMERSDALE SOUTH 4, 5 SKELMERSDALE NORTH -- SCOTT 6 SCARISBRICK 7 RUFFORD 8 PARBOLD -- NORTH MEOLS -- NEWBURGH 9, 10, 11 MOORSIDE -- KNOWSLEY 12 HESKETH with BECCONSALL -- HALSALL 13 DIGMOOR -- DERBY 14, 15, 16 BURSCOUGH WEST 17 BURSCOUGH EAST -- BIRCH GREEN -- BICKERSTAFFE 18 AUGHTON PARK -- AUGHTON and DOWNHOLLAND 2 ASHURST 19
AGENDA ITEM:
PLANNING COMMITTEE: 8th SEPTEMBER 2005
______
Report of : Executive Manager Planning and Development Services
Contact for further information : J.R. Harrison (Extn. 5132)
SUBJECT : PLANNING APPLICATIONS
No. 1 APPLICATION No. 8/04/1664 LOCATION FORMER BROOKLANDS NURSING HOME, 77 DINGLE ROAD, UP HOLLAND PROPOSAL CONVERSION AND THREE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TO PROVIDE 8 NO. 2 BED AND 4 NO. 1 BED “AFFORDABLE” FLATS AND PROVISION OF WIDENED VEHICULAR ACCESS, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING APPLICANT CATCHDALE LTD WARD WRIGHTINGTON PARISH UP HOLLAND 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 17.2.05
1. DEFERRAL
1.1 This application was initially deferred for a site visit at the Committee on 23rd June to enable Members to assess the impact of the proposed access on existing trees and highway safety. As a result of the site visit, the application was again deferred at the last Committee on 28th July in order for a revised access arrangement to be negotiated based around utilising the existing access. 2. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
2.1 8/82/0959 APPROVED. 7.1.83. Conversion of dwelling into residential home for the elderly. 8/04/0212 REFUSED. 20.5.04. Outline – demolition of existing building and erection of 9 no. retirement apartments.
3. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
3.1 UNITED UTILITIES (14.1.05) – no objection subject to various measures relating to drainage and water supply.
3.2 PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING MANAGER (14.1.05) – no observations to make.
3.3 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (19.1.05) – no objections.
3.4 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (26.1.05) – suggests noise survey to assess impact on the development of noise from the surrounding area and measures be imposed during construction phase to control dust and noise.
3.5 EXECUTIVE MANAGER HOUSING SERVICES (2.2.05) – confirms there is a requirement for additional affordable housing in Up Holland, which is supported by the Council’s Housing Needs Survey Update and the Housing Market Assessment. The proposed scheme has been developed as part of a pilot private finance Affordable Housing Programme with Cosmopolitan Housing Association. The Housing Services Division supports the development of the scheme for a mix of affordable rent, intermediate rent, shared ownership or reduced market housing for sale. Properties developed will be allocated in accordance with the Council’s current Housing Allocation Scheme, which would give priority to people with a local connection to Up Holland. Additionally, the conversion of the property will assist in meeting Council targets of reducing number of empty homes in the District.
3.6 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (HIGHWAYS) (4.3.05, 5.4.05 and 29.4.05) – concerns raised regarding original proposed access that it was too close to junction with A577/College Road. Satisfied with revised access arrangements but recommend conditions regarding gateposts, access surfacing and gradient of access.
4. VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 UP HOLLAND PARISH COUNCIL – objects to the original scheme on the grounds that the proposed entrance is close to the junction of Dingle Road and College Road and increased traffic from this shared entrance is considered a traffic hazard. It is also considered that the original scheme would lead to an overdevelopment of the site and the extension would be overbearing for neighbouring properties. No comments have been received on the revised proposed. 5. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Six letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents, business and “Up Holland Environmental and Building Control Group” raising the following concerns:-
- too may residential units - increase in traffic and on street parking - loss of trees - loss of light and privacy - out of character with area - extension too large - contrary to SPG on new residential development - infrastructure in area already at full capacity.
5.2 One letter of support has been received which notes that the building will not fall into dereliction.
6. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
6.1 The applicant has offered supporting information in respect of the proposed development. A design statement outlines the concept of the proposal and following discussions with Cosmopolitan Housing Association, the scheme put forward would be developed with them to provide 100% affordable units on the site.
6.2 The existing property is of striking design and previous extensions have been poorly matched. One incongruous element is the steel frame, timber clad fire escape to the northeast elevation which is to be removed. The proposed extension will acknowledge, but be subordinate to the main house.
6.3 The present scheme offers a solution to regenerate “Brooklands” and provide much needed affordable accommodation. At present, the vacant property has no alternative means of regeneration and would remain unattended for some time, with the site gradually deteriorating.
7. EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7.1 The application site comprises an elegant two-storey Victorian building with rooms contained in the roof space and various single storey and one two- storey extensions and outriggers which represent later additions directly connected with the last use of the building as a nursing home. It is currently vacant and has been for the last 18 months and though set back from the road with extensive frontage landscaping, it remains an imposing building in a prominent location close to the Y junction of Dingle Road, College Road and Grove Road.
7.2 The proposal was originally to convert the building, remove some of the previous extensions and erect a new three storey extension on the north side of the building to provide 14 no. affordable residential units. It was also originally proposed to utilise the existing access close to the junction with Dingle road/College Road. This is a shared access with the residential property 75a Dingle Road.
7.3 Following extensive negotiations with the applicant, the proposal was amended to include conversion and extension to form 12 no. affordable units and a new access to serve these units further northwards along College Road than the existing access, which was to be retained as the sole access to 75a Dingle Road. As a result of further negotiations, the proposal has been further amended to utilise but widen the existing access.
7.4 The revised scheme includes the demolition of an existing two storey timber clad extension and a conservatory on the north elevation and replacement with a three storey block, attached to the original building by a part single and part two storey flat roof link block. The link building is 6m high with a parapet wall and has a width of 5.5m. It is set back 1m from the main front wall of the original building. The three-storey block measures 10.7m in width by 9m in depth and is 8m to the eaves and 11.5m to the ridge. The roof design mimics that of the original building and includes raised gable ends. Similarities with the existing design of the original building are also picked up in the stringcourses and soldier courses, the gutter line and plinth detail. However, the Victorian style window details have not been replicated and are more modern in both scale and design.
7.5 The access will be retained and widened at the southern-most end of the site. This is a shared access with 75a Dingle Road. This access was considered unsuitable by County Highway Engineers due to its close proximity to the bend and junction of Dingle Road and Grove Road. Within the site, car parking for 8 vehicles can be achieved at the rear of the site adjacent to the Rectory. Parking is also provided for 4 vehicles at the south of the site and 2 vehicles adjacent 75a Dingle Road on the area of the previous drive and hardsurfaced frontage. The existing vehicular access at the junction of Dingle Road/Grove Road will be retained to serve the private residence of 75a Dingle Road and the proposed units. Ramped pedestrian access would also be provided at this point into the site.
7.6 The applicants have clearly stated their intention to develop 100% affordable units and have commitment from Cosmopolitan Housing Association to develop the site for low-cost shared ownership flats in accordance with a S106 Agreement to be agreed with the Council. In this respect, the proposal satisfies the criteria set out in Policy DE.1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan and is acceptable in principle.
7.7 Utilising the existing access does mean that none of the TPO trees at the north end of the site would require removal, although one large tree is in need of replacement due to its poor condition. The loss of the conifers along the boundary with the access drive to the Rectory is considered acceptable, particularly as a screen of trees remains along the driveway to the Rectory. However, two smaller trees also protected by a group TPO would also require removal as a result of widening the existing access. I consider that the loss of these two trees would not be as harmful to the visual amenity of the street scene as the loss of trees further northwards. A balance must be made as to the overall merits of the development in terms of affordable housing provision, retention of important and visually attractive trees against the utilising of the existing access, which is not completely acceptable to the Highway Authority.
7.8 Turning to issues of residential amenity, the impact on the immediately adjacent property 75a Dingle Road would be similar to the existing arrangement using the shared access although it would be more frequently used than the previous residential home use but not to such an extent that it would warrant refusal in my opinion. The proposed car park is adjacent to the Rectory and I would propose suitable conditions regarding boundary treatment in order to avoid noise and disturbance. Windows on the rear of the proposed extension would be 17m from the rear boundary, 19m from the garage of the Rectory and 24m from the gable elevation, which has no habitable room windows. The gable elevation of the proposed extension is 24m from the gable of the adjacent bungalow at 1 College Road but there are only obscure glazed bathroom windows on this elevation, therefore no loss of privacy would occur. Furthermore, I consider that at this distance and with substantial existing tree cover in between, no overshadowing would occur. The proposed extension is 32m from the property directly opposite on College Road and at this distance and with some tree cover remaining, I consider no loss of privacy would occur. I consider that the overall scale and appearance of the extension, whilst having significant impact upon the streetscene, satisfies Local Plan Policies on design and scale of development.
7.9 On balance, subject to an acceptable S106 Agreement detailing the deliverability of affordable housing I consider that the scheme now proposed satisfies Policy DE1 of the RDDWLRLP and Policies H.1, H.4, T.2 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and should be granted.
8. RECOMMENDATION
8.1 That the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the Executive Manager Planning/Development Services in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which requires measures to ensure the units are affordable.
1. SCT02 Standard time condition. 2. SCP01 Amended plans: Plan Ref: Existing site plan 1814-01 Rev D received 26.4.05. Plan Ref: Proposed site plan 1814-04 Rev J received 17.08.05. Plan Ref: Proposed elevations 1814-07 Rev C received 20.5.05. Plan Ref: Proposed ground floor layout 1814-05 Rev F received 20.5.05. Plan Ref: Proposed first and second floor layouts 1814-06 Rev G received 20.5.05. 3. SCB14 Details of materials. 4. SCB18 Obscure glazing – bathroom windows on north elevation of extension. 5. SCB26 Site levels – add including levels of site access. 6. SCL11 Submit landscaping/implement in 9 months. 7. SCD03 Drainage details. 8. SCH01 Access before dwellings first occupied. 9. SCH10 Vehicle areas first. 10. SCH14 Mark out car park. 11. SCL14 Screen walls. 12. SCL16 Tree Protection Method Statement – add the Method Statement shall include details of construction of access driveway to 75a Dingle Road. 13. Any gateposts erected at the access shall be positioned 5m behind the nearside edge of the carriageway and visibility splay fences or walls shall be erected from the gateposts to the existing boundary, such splays shall be 450 to the centre line of access. The gates shall open away from the highway. Should the access remain ungated 450 splays shall be provided between the highway boundary and points on either side of the drive measured 5m back from the nearside edge of the carriageway.
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard time. 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt – Policy H.4. 3. RCB07 External appearance – Policy H.4. 4. RCB04 Privacy – Policy H.4. 5. RCC01 Assimilate development – Policy H.4. 6. RCC01 Assimilate development – Policy H.4. 7. RCD03 Ensure site drained. 8. RCH01 Road safety. 9. RCH03 Assimilation of parking. 10. RCH03 Assimilation of parking. 11. RCL01 Assimilate development. 12. RCL07 Assess effect on trees. 13. RCH06 Vehicles clear of highway.
Notes
1. GEN02 Samples on site (Condition 3) 2. GEN08 Building Regulations 3. GEN11 Access to buildings for the Fire Brigade 4. GEN12 Planning permission only 5. GEN05 Access for disabled persons 6. GEN17 Amended plans 7. GEN23 Permission subject of S.106 Agreement 8. GEN27 Vehicle crossing 9. GEN33 Approval of materials 10. GEN34 New road names/property numbering 11. GEN35 Demolition Works Reason for Approval
1. SRA01 Standard Reason Policy H.1 – Residential Development Policy H.4 – Design Criteria for Residential Development Policy H.6 – Affordable Housing Policy T.2 – Road Traffic and Development Policy LN.5 – Tree Surveys Policy LN.6 – Trees and Development.
AV/JRH/SK/SC
No. 2 APPLICATION No.: 8/05/0617 LOCATION: 36 WINIFRED LANE, AUGHTON PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT DWELLING WITH INTEGRAL DOUBLE GARAGE. CREATION OF NEW VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS APPLICANT: COLIN WALKER WARD: AUGHTON & DOWNHOLLAND PARISH: AUGHTON 8 WEEKS EXPIRE: 08/07/05
1. DEFERRAL
1.1. This application was deferred for a site visit to enable Members to assess the impact of the development on neighbouring residential amenity.
2. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
2.1 None.
3. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
3.1. UNITED UTILITIES (02.06.05) – No objections
3.2. EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (08.06.05) – request landfill gas investigation due to the presence of an infilled pond within the site.
3.3. LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (HIGHWAYS) (10.06.05) – request further information.
4. VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 AUGHTON PC (14.06.05) – objects on the basis of overbearing development, overshadowing and impact on the character of the area and street scene. 5. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Three letters from occupants of neighbouring properties have been received highlighting the following concerns:
• Replacement dwelling out of scale with neighbouring properties and area generally and obtrusive in street scene; • Overshadowing of windows and garden areas; • Overbearing development/visual intrusion; • Possible future addition of windows and doors resulting in loss of privacy; • Capability of existing drainage system to cope with additional accommodation; • Parking provision within site given extent of accommodation; • Significant loss of residential amenity. • Forward of building line • Boundaries shown incorrect
5.2 A follow-up letter from the immediate neighbour at 36 Winifred Lane has been received highlighting the following points with respect to the revised scheme.
Original objections still stand; in addition, the following comments refer to the amended scheme:
• Proposal will result in profound overshadowing of half patio area which will be in permanent shade – exacerbated in winter months. • Rear windows in permanent shade. • Close proximity to gable window. • Alterations made have resulted in virtually no difference in the size of shadow the building would case over the neighbouring property. • The repositioning of the dwelling further back in the site has compounded the overshadowing and cancelled out any benefits arising from the amendments to the application. • Proposal will result in 6.5m high gable end 1m from the boundary taking light from the neighbouring property and have a significant visual impact. • The gable will cover a bedroom window at a distance of 1.5m. • Plans do not reflect the magnitude of the adverse impact it would have on the neighbouring property nor the sheer scale of development in context of the neighbouring properties. • Proposal does not meet policy requirement/design criteria. • Amendments do not address neighbours previously stated concerns indeed the impacts are worsened. • No other examples in the District of dwellings squeezed together as these would be exist. 6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 The application relates to an existing dormer bungalow sited to the north- eastern side of Winifred Lane within the residential settlement area. The dwelling lies within a large plot and has two large Beech trees to its frontage; one of these trees is protected by Preservation Order. Views to the front of the plot are open over agricultural fields. The site is bounded by established hedging to the front and sides, with mature vegetation and lawn to the rear.
6.2 The application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling and a replacement two storey dwelling. The existing dwelling measures approx. 10.4 x 8m with a ridge height of 6.4m. An attached flat roof garage extends to the boundary with 38 Winifred Lane. The replacement dwelling with integral garages measures approx. 13.5 x 18.1m (maximum dimensions) with a higher ridge level of 7.8m. The design features a lowered bay to the north-western side of the plot with a lowered ridge of 6.0m and includes front and rear dormers. The main roofs are partially hipped. The application also proposes the relocation of the existing vehicular and pedestrian access to the site.
6.3 Policies H.4 ‘Design Criteria for Residential Development’ of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policies DE1 ‘Residential Development’ and GD1 ‘Design of Development’ of the Re-Deposit Replacement Local Plan are relevant in consideration of the application.
6.4 This stretch of Winifred Lane appears as semi-rural in nature due to the open aspect to the south-west. The streetscene is comprised of mixed housing types and forms, and has no consistent strong building line. The site lies outside, but adjacent to, the Granville Park Conservation Area.
6.5 Whilst the proposal is a large scale detached dwelling, it is sited within a commensurate plot and is not considered out of keeping in the locality due to the mixed nature of developments in the locality. The scheme has been revised since its initial receipt to overcome site constraints and to minimise the impact on adjacent properties. These changes have included a reduction of the ridge height from the initial submission by 1.0m and the dwelling being located further back in the plot. This will result in a development of comparable height to the adjacent property at 38 Winifred Lane when ground level differences are taken into account. Indeed, the presence of a large tree to the frontage of the plot and other frontage trees obscure direct views of the site. I consider the design and appearance of the revised scheme to be acceptable.
6.6 Similarly, the site is well screened from visually impacting on the Granville Park Conservation Area and as such I feel that this proposal will have no impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
6.7 It is not anticipated that any significant detrimental impact on residential amenity in the vicinity will result. Windows are located predominantly to front and rear elevations and address the garden areas of the property. Windows to the side elevations are restricted to ground floor only and, given the proposals to erect 2 metre high fencing to either side of the dwelling this will not result in direct overlooking of adjacent properties.
6.8 In considering the issues of light loss and overbearing development, the property at 34 Winifred Lane lies to the south-east of the application site where no overshadowing is anticipated.
6.9 With respect to the property at 38 Winifred Lane I consider some additional overshadowing may result during mid morning due to the increased 1.4m main ridge height of the proposed building over the existing and the higher roof where currently a flat roof garage exists. However, I consider that this will not be so considerable to give rise to a significant loss of residential amenity. The property at 38 Winifred Lane has rear facing windows serving a living room (patio doors) and kitchen at ground floor and two bedroom and a landing window at first floor, these are north-east facing and will receive little direct sunlight. In addition, south-east facing windows are also present to the first floor bedrooms and kitchen, these windows will receive a significant amount of direct sunlight particularly a side bedroom window to the south-east elevation of the building, overlooking the application site. Light to all these windows bar the side bedroom window and rear facing kitchen window is significantly diminished due to the location of a conifer within the neighbours site close to the boundary with the application plot. The proposed development has its ridges in alignment with the side of No. 38 and therefore overshadowing resulting from the full height of the ridge only occurs once the sun has gone beyond the plane of the rear elevation of the neighbouring property i.e. the windows and garden area lie in the buildings own shadow. This is also the time when overshadowing can be attributed to the beech tree located to the front side of the dwelling which is proposed for removal due to disease. On balance, I consider some limited additional overshadowing of the garden area may result but not to the extent to warrant refusal of the application.
6.10 With respect to the window to the side of No. 38, the proposal has potential for overshadowing. However as the bedroom in question has a further window in the rear elevation, on balance I do not think there is sufficient grounds to warrant a reason for refusal.
6.11. The proposed access is considered acceptable being a significant improvement over the existing constrained driveway which lies adjacent to the protected tree. Parking provision at the site is acceptable with sufficient space and turning area for several cars.
6.12 The proposed hardstanding to the front of the site will be constructed in a semi-porous/porous surfacing to minimise the risk of damage to the protected tree at the front of the site. The remaining Beech tree to the side of the existing dwelling is proposed for removal due to disease. This is verified by the Council’s Arboricutural Officer.
6.13 In summary, whilst I acknowledge the scheme has given rise to numerous concerns in relation to design and impacts on neighbouring properties I consider that, on balance, the scheme is acceptable and therefore should be approved.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-
1. SCT02 Standard Time Condition 2. SCP01 Amended Details (site plan and proposed plans and elevations received 20.07.05 and location plan received 12.05.05). 3. SCB26 Submit levels 4. SCB14 Details of materials 5. SCH07 Closure of existing access to Winifred Lane prior to first occupation of the dwelling. 6. SCH03 Set back gates 7. SCH17 5m of access surfaced 8. SCL16 Tree protection method statement 9. Prior to commencement of development a method statement detailing the method of construction and materials to be used for the hardstanding to the front of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be implemented in strict accordance with these details to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 10. SCL12 Ground levels 11. SCB07 Restrict PD windows 12. SCL15 Erect fence before occupation north-west and south-east boundaries 13. The existing hedgerows to the south-western boundary of the site and that element of the south-eastern boundary of the site behind the rear elevation of the dwelling shall be retained as part of the landscaping scheme for the site to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 14. Prior to the commencement of development a (landfill) gas investigation and risk assessment shall be carried out by a suitably qualified consultant. The results of this investigation shall be submitted to this Authority, together with any recommendations for remediation of the site deemed necessary as a result of the investigation and associated risk assessment. Development shall not commence until this report and the Authority has approved any related recommendations.
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard Time Condition 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt (Policy H.4) 3. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt (Policy H.4) 4. RCB07 External Appearance (Policy H.4) 5. RCH01 Road safety 6. RCH06 Vehicles clear of the highway 7. RCH07 Prevent loose material on highway 8. RCL07 Assess affect on trees 9. RCL06 Tree health 10. RCL06 Tree health 11. RCB04 Privacy (H.4) 12. RCB04 Privacy (H.4) 13. RCL02 Protect trees (replace ‘trees and shrubs’ with hedges) 14. RCB06 Landfill gas protection
NOTES
1. GEN02 Samples on site. 2. GEN06 Landfill Gas Mitigation Measures 3. GEN07 Landfill gas disclaimer (200m) 4. GEN08 Building Regulations 5. GEN11 Access to buildings for the fire brigade 6. GEN12 Planning Permission Only 7. GEN17 Amended plans 8. GEN27 Vehicular crossing LCC 9. GEN33 Approval of materials 10. GEN35 Demolition
Reason for Approval
SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policy H.4 ‘Design Criteria for Residential Development’ of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policies DE1 ‘Residential Development’ and GD1 ‘Design of Development’ of the Re-Deposit Replacement West Lancashire Local Plan.
RH/JRH/HA/SC
No. 3 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0593 LOCATION BARN AT KNIGHTS FARM, 51 ROBY MILL, UP HOLLAND PROPOSAL CONVERSION OF RURAL BUILDING WITH ANCILLARY RESIDENTIAL USE AND ERECTION OF SINGLE-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION APPLICANT MRS M. BOND WARD WRIGHTINGTON PARISH UP HOLLAND 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 06.07.2005
1.0 DEFERRAL
1.1 This application was deferred for a site visit to enable Members to assess the suitability of the barn for alternative uses. 2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
2.1 8/04/1242 REFUSED. 16.11.04. Conversion of disused barn to dwelling including raising height of walls and roof, single-storey utility and conservatory extensions.
3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
3.1 CONSERVATION AREA ADVISORY PANEL (26.05.05) - No objection subject to all external materials being appropriate to the character/appearance of the barn.
3.2 WOODLAND TRUST (3.6.05) – No objections.
3.3 FORESTRY COMMISSION (6.6.05) – No observations.
3.4 ENGLISH NATURE (20.6.05) – No observations.
3.5 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (20.6.05) – Recommend landfill gas disclaimer.
3.6 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL LAND AGENT (4.7.05) – Provides detailed background information on the existing farming enterprise and concludes that there is no agricultural justification in accordance with PPS7 for an agricultural worker’s dwelling.
4.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 No observations received.
5.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 None received.
6.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION
6.1 The agent for the applicant has submitted a justification statement to support the proposal. It outlines the principle of the development and explains that the proposed conversion is not for a separate dwelling but is a way of addressing a particular problem which exists in relation to Knights Farm as an agricultural enterprise.
6.2 The farm is a livestock and arable farm consisting of 90 acres of land and the herd comprises of approximately 80 beef cattle. The farm has historically been run by Mr & Mrs Bond, but has now been taken over by their eldest daughter (Mrs Eastham) since the death of Mr. Bond nine years ago. Mrs. Bond intends to retire within the next 5 years and for Mrs Eastham, together with the help of her 2 sisters, take over operating the farm. At present Mrs Bond and all her three daughters (and son-in-law) live in the farmhouse. In addition to Mrs Eastham managing and working on the farm, her husband is also involved in assisting in the farm and keeps his own agricultural equipment at the premises. It is therefore necessary for both of them to be resident in the immediate vicinity in order to effectively operate the farming enterprise. However, the proposal is not one for an agricultural worker’s dwelling but for ancillary accommodation within an existing farming unit.
6.3 It is, therefore, appropriate that some form of subsidiary accommodation could be provided on site which would not represent an independent separate dwelling, but would be effectively ancillary to the main farmhouse and would not, therefore, need to be taken account of in the calculation of housing land figures.
6.4 The design and location of the building that it cannot be put to a commercial use as it is located in the middle of a working farmyard with only one access which runs past the farmhouse and through the yard.
6.5 The conversion has been sensitively designed which helps to enhance the character and appearance of the building and rescues it from a potential decline into dilapidation. The building would require less than 25% rebuild if the roof members are retained. A bat and barn own survey suggests no evidence of use by either species. There can be no independent access which consolidates the view that the proposal is for subsidiary accommodation.
6.6 The original farmhouse was approved as two dwellings and upon conversion were occupied by Mr and Mrs Bond and by Mr Bond's sister and her husband. The second dwelling was subsequently sold off to a private individual and is now occupied in that capacity. There is, therefore, no other dwelling available on the farm other than the farmhouse.
6.7 The location of the barn is such that it is in the middle of a working farmyard used for herding and sorting cattle and it would not be practical for holiday lettings.
6.8 The proposal essentially involves a form of affordable housing in that there is a desperate need for the daughter of the farming enterprise to be locally resident and the values of properties in the area are prohibitive. The suggested Section 106 Agreement would require any occupier to be related to the occupier of the farmhouse and be involved in the farming business, which would guarantee that the property could not be used as an independent dwelling. The building is specifically chosen because it is unused and available, not because it is large enough to accommodate 3 bedrooms, for which the applicant has no particular desire. The building has merely been selected because it is incapable of being put to an alternative use. It is not unreasonable to regard it as ancillary given it is within a collection of buildings which are owned and operated from the farmhouse. 7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7.1 The disused barn is located approximately 33m to the north west of Knights farmhouse, along a tarmac drive leading off Roby Mill. It is a stone barn, (the rear elevation is brick) which is attached to another brick barn to its south eastern elevation and to a cattle shed and storage barn to the north eastern elevation, adjacent stone hayloft steps. To the south is a grassed area, part of the farmholding, with houses along Farley Lane some 30m away. To the north are agricultural storage buildings across the tarmac drive, some 6m away.
7.2 The barn is located on a working farm within the Roby Mill Conservation Area and the Green Belt. Policy GB.7 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan allows for the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt subject to a number of criteria. Policy DS.2 (5) of the West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan (Deposit Draft) goes on to state that “the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt, other than for residential use, will be permitted” provided that it meets a number of specific criteria. At Policy DS.2 (6) it further clarifies that the “conversion of a rural building in the Green Belt for residential use will be considered where it meets a specific local need or an identified local housing need in less remote locations, or where it can be demonstrated that the building is inherently unsuitable for any other use. It should also meet detailed specific criterion”.
7.3 Policy GB.7 also refers to the requirement for applicants to provide supporting evidence that the building is unsuitable for business re-use. I am not convinced that all possible options for the future use of the barn have been explained, for instance, as a holiday cottage.
7.4 Policy GB.7 also refers to the fact that the barn in question should be capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction. The applicant has submitted a structural survey with the application. It is evident from an external visual inspection, that the roof is asbestos sheeting which would require replacement. There is also a severe crack and partial collapse of part of the front wall which will require rebuilding. However, all other walls only require minor repair. On the evidence submitted, I accept that total rebuild would amount of less than 25%.
7.5 Both Policy GB.7 and Policy CA.2 of the adopted local plan state that the proposed conversion must be architecturally consistent with the existing building. The scheme now proposed is, in my opinion, consistent with the existing architectural character of the building. The number of new openings is minimal and the proposed single-storey side extension is small and of traditional design. The closest properties on Farley Lane are 30m away and I consider no significant loss of privacy would occur.
7.6 Policy DE.1 of the Lancashire Replacement Local Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance : Managing Housing Supply is relevant. This restricts the number of new dwellings permitted and only allows for the conversion of vacant buildings within the main settlement areas of Ormskirk, Skelmersdale, Burscough and Aughton and only then, when evidence can be provided that conversion to residential would meet a regeneration need or would be for affordable housing. The conversion of even one barn to a residential unit, without any special circumstances having been demonstrated, would clearly be contrary to this Policy. Whilst I accept the importance to the rural landscape of preserving traditional barns, I am unable to disregard the fact that the emerging Structure Plan’s housing figures stem directly from Regional Planning Guidance and reflect the Government’s current objective of directing housing to sustaining sites in regeneration areas. New dwellings resulting from barn conversions add to West Lancashire’s oversupply of housing in just the same way as new houses do.
7.7 The applicant has put forward special circumstances in order to demonstrate that the conversion of the barn to residential use would be tied to both a relative and an agricultural worker (although not employed full-time in agriculture). However, I consider that the creation of a three-bedroomed dwelling approximately 35m from the main farmhouse cannot be considered as ancillary. Furthermore, Miss Bond is not employed full-time in agriculture and the farmhouse she, her mother and sisters currently live in was a converted barn which was granted planning permission to be changed into two dwellings in 1984 to serve the needs of the agricultural justification for the proposal. I consider, therefore, that the circumstances put forward are not so special as to warrant departure from Local Plan, Structure Plan and Regional Guidance on the oversupply of housing land.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
8.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason :-
1. RRR01 Housing Land Oversupply
AV/JRH/PH/SC
No. 4 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0796 LOCATION LIVERPOOL ROAD PLAYING FIELD, WHITE MOSS ROAD, SKELMERSDALE PROPOSAL OUTLINE. ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT FOOTBALL CHANGING PAVILION, PROVISION OF CAR PARKING AND ALL-WEATHER TRAINING AREAS (INCLUDING DETAILS OF SITING AND MEANS OF ACCESS) APPLICANT WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL WARD SKELMERSDALE SOUTH PARISH N/A 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 18.8.2005
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 None.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 UNITED UTILITIES (13.7.05) – No objections.
2.2 LOCAL ACCESS GROUP (21.7.05) – Accessibility requirements.
2.3 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (26.7.05) – No objection subject to sufficient safeguards to protect residents. Areas of concern include: - vehicle noise from use of car park late in evening; - use of outdoor sports areas – recommend only up to 8.00 p.m. - floodlighting should be positioned so that it does not impede on neighbours.
3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 One letter of objection from occupier of nearby property : - Security fencing may enable people to climb into garden. - Light pollution to rear of property. - Overlooking from building. - Disturbance caused by amount of cars and people. - Other developments have already changed the character of the area. - Youths already meet around the changing rooms causing damage and graffiti and new facility will attract even more. - Will end up in same condition as all-weather pitch at Blaguegate with fences damaged and buildings vandalised.
4.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
4.1 The application relates to a site of 0.4ha at the eastern end of the existing playing field, adjacent to White Moss Road. The site is currently occupied by a timber changing room facility which is in a poor state of repair, and an informal parking area. Existing residential development lies to the north and south of the site.
4.2 The application site lies within the settlement boundary of Skelmersdale, while the adjacent playing field lies within the Green Belt and is protected by Policy LE.11 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. Policy LE.15 states that proposals for the creation of outdoor sport and recreation facilities will be permitted subject to several criteria, including that the proposal should not have a detrimental effect on residential amenity; the design and layout of new buildings relates well to any adjacent buildings, the area generally and the natural features of the site in terms of siting, scale, orientation and appearance; and access and parking comply with the Council’s approved standards.
4.3 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single-storey building comprising 8 changing rooms, kitchen, office and “social space”. The proposed building measures 33m x 14.5m and is sited approximately 45 metres west of the Whitemoss Road frontage. The area in front of the building will be used to provide a landscaped parking area with space for approximately 30 cars using the existing access off Whitemoss Road. To the rear of the building, a tarmac practice pitch measuring 30m x 38m will be provided. The application is in outline with details of siting and means of access submitted at this stage.
4.4 The main issues in this case relate to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the occupiers of properties in the vicinity of the site, and the acceptability of the scheme in terms of access and parking. The site has an established leisure use and has provided parking and changing facilities for the adjacent playing field for many years. The proposed development will result in a greatly improved facility and ensure the continued use of the sports pitches by both adult and junior teams. It will also result in an improvement of the site in visual amenity terms, including the removal of the existing timber changing facility.
4.5 The proposed development may result in a marginal increase in the use of the playing fields due to the provision of improved facilities. However, the fields are already well-used resulting in a high level of activity at various time of the week. In my opinion no unacceptable loss of amenity will be caused to neighbouring occupiers, subject to the appropriate design and appearance of the building and the provision of appropriate boundary treatments, landscaping and lighting. I also propose a restriction on the hours of operation of the site in order to prevent the use of the building for evening functions.
4.6 The provision of 30 parking spaces complies with the Lancashire County Council maximum parking standards, and additional parking can be provided on the tarmac practice pitch at peak times. The continued use of the existing access off Whitemoss Road does not raise any highway safety issues.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
5.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions :-
1. SCT01 Standard time condition. Outline. 2. SCD01 Submit Reserved Matters. Delete “siting” and “means of access”. 3. The use of the practice pitch, building and floodlighting shall only take place between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 8.00 p.m. on any day. 4. The development hereby approved shall only be used to provide parking and changing facilities in association with the adjacent playing fields and shall be used for no other purpose including any other purpose within Class D2 of the Use Classes Order 2005.
Reasons
1. RCT01 Standard time reason. Outline. 2. RCD01 Outline approval 3. RCM03 Amenities of others. Policy LE.15 4. RCM03 Amenities of others. Policy LE.15
Reason for Approval
SRA01 Standard Approval Reason. Policy LE.15. Development of Outdoor Sport and Recreation Facilities.
NOTES
1. GEN05 Access for Disabled Persons 2. GEN08 Building Regulations 3. GEN11 Access to buildings for the Fire Brigade 4. GEN12 Planning permission only 5. GEN35 Demolition
AT/JRH/PH
No. 5 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0993 LOCATION BLAGUEGATE PLAYING FIELDS, RAILWAY ROAD, SKELMERSDALE PROPOSAL REPLACEMENT CHANGING PAVILION APPLICANT GILLIAN ROWE WARD SKELMERSDALE SOUTH PARISH N/A 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 30.9.05
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 None.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 None.
3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 None.
4.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
4.1 This application proposes the demolition and replacement of an existing flat roof building currently used to provide changing accommodation for Blaguegate playing fields which are in poor condition. The replacement building would be positioned on the same site as the existing building and be of pre-fabricated construction with flat roof. The building will measure 21.6m x 17.5m and provide 8 team changing rooms, 4 referee changing rooms, toilet and shower facilities and first aid room.
4.2 The site lies within Green Belt however Green Belt policy permits the erection of buildings essentially required in association with outdoor sports and recreational use. This building will house essential facilities and replaces a building of a similar size and construction and therefore I raise no objections in principle. I have concerns however that pre-fabricated buildings of this nature are not particularly attractive and do not in general weather well over a long period of time and consequently I feel they are unacceptable as permanent features in areas of Green Belt, and particularly in this sort of situation where they are in a visually prominent location. My recommendation is therefore that initially planning permission be for a limited period of 5 years. This will allow adequate time to consider methods of enhancing the appearance of the building or the provision of a more permanent traditional built structure.
4.3 The site is a minimum distance of 140m from the nearest residential property and consequently I do not consider that the replacement building will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of these properties.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
5.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. SCT05 Temporary building expiring 30th September 2010
Reasons
1. RCB03 Character of property – Policy GB.4
Reason for Approval
1. SRA01 Standard Approval Reason
Policy GB1 – Control Over Development in the Green Belt Policy GB4 – Design and Location of Acceptable Development in the Green Belt
JRH/SK ------
No. 6 APPLICATION No. 8/04/1456 LOCATION THE HATTERSLEY CENTRE, BURSCOUGH ROAD, ORMSKIRK PROPOSAL OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT (B1 & B8) AND NON-FOOD RETAIL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING SITING AND MEANS OF ACCESS APPLICANT PENDLE BRACKEN LTD WARD SCOTT PARISH N/A 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 08.07.05
1. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 None.
2. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 NETWORK RAIL (26.11.04) No objections in principle.
2.2 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ARCHAEOLOGY (22.11.04) – No objections.
2.3 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (CONTAMINATED LAND) (24.11.04) – Satisfied that the levels of contamination found in soil samples do not exceed UK Soil Guideline Values and levels of contaminants are sufficiently low not to represent long-term risk to health. However, some attenuation works required. The site overlies a major aquifer and EA approval of remediation of the site is required. Further sampling required on previously tipped areas.
2.4 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING (01.12.04) – Proposed development conforms to the strategic planning policy subject to West Lancashire District Council being satisfied that there are not any sequentially preferable sites for this development, or to accommodate disaggregated elements. Proposal should be carefully assessed to ensure it would not have any adverse impact upon viability of similar sites in Skelmersdale and thus affect the regeneration of the town. Accepts that there is a quantitative and qualitative need for improvements in the non-food retail offer in Ormskirk due to considerable leakage to other nearby towns. There may be opportunity to reduce any possible negative affects on the District's town centres if there is scope to locate elements of the development in sequentially preferable locations. The site is 550m north of the town centre and is a 10-minute walk, majority of bus services along Burscough Road would not serve the site and the site has low accessibility, therefore, a public transport contribution should be made to upgrade the bus/rail station.
2.5 UNITIED UTILITIES (01.12.04) – No objection in principle. Several public sewers cross the site and building will not be permitted over them.
2.6 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (12.12.04) – (08.02.05) and (26.05.05) - No objection in principle but advises that there are severe flooding problems on the adjacent Pine Estate immediately downstream of the site. It is essential that surface water run-off is attenuated to no more than existing rates and recommend a condition to ensure this. The Abbey Brook culvert should be free of obstruction for maintenance purposes. They also recommend landfill gas investigations.
2.7 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (25.05.05) – Recommend noise survey be carried out to assess the likely impact that noise from development may have on the surrounding noise sensitive premises. Recommend restrictive noise conditions and hours of delivery and use restrictions. Also, require Environmental Management Plan covering construction phases.
2.8 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS (14.02.05) – Tracking movements required, distribution of generated traffic satisfactory. Parking should be within Lancashire County Council guidelines. Accept the principle but advise that the final detailed design will be carried out by the County Council and will be subject to safety audits. Recommend conditions regarding design, motorcycle parking, surfacing of car park, wheel-wash facilities and submission of Business Travel Plan.
2.9 EXECUTIVE MANAGER REGENERATION AND PROPERTY (12.08.05) (15.11.04 & 09.12.04 & 19.04.05) - Fully support re-use of part of site for industrial purposes and welcome provision of new offices. Element of non- food retail of some concern but there is an identified shortage of non-food retail sites in Ormskirk leading to significant leakage of expenditure from the local economy. Does not conflict with SPG in terms of no more than 25% of site used for retail. Any resulting loss of jobs occurring in the town centre should be weighed against creation of major employment opportunities. Welcome creation of 300 plus jobs. Implementation of scheme will help achieve aims of Regional Economic Strategy, from a valuation point of view, the figures are robust and appear to be genuine in their nature. The development of the site for purely office/industrial would deliver a negative site value.
3. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 52 letters of objection were received to the original scheme from neighbouring residential properties and one local development company. 16 letters of objection have been received to the amended scheme from neighbouring residential properties and one local development company. The following issues have been raised:
Traffic and Safety
• Position of new double roundabout will cause access problems to and from driveways and are a danger to other motorists and pedestrians. • Increased traffic in this mainly residential area, particularly at unsociable hours. • Increased traffic congestion. • Increase in large delivery vehicles using Burscough Road. • No pedestrian/cycle access to Ormskirk Station. • No bus layby proposed. • Yew Tree Road will be used as a rat-run. • Need for increase in traffic calming in surrounding area. • Access should be from New Court Way. • Access for ambulances and Police would be restricted. • Insufficient parking provided which would lead to on-street parking. • No pedestrian crossing over Burscough Road. • Should not be a cycle path access to Old Boundary Way. • Junction of Burscough Road and Yew Tree Road already dangerous and proposal will make it worse. • Many school children use Burscough Road and increased traffic will be a safety hazard. • Increase road traffic accidents.
Retailing
• Direct competition with other similar shops in Ormskirk which will seriously affect viability of businesses and could result in closure and loss of jobs. • Loss of vitality of Ormskirk Town Centre • Floor area of retail more than 25%. • Already three DIY stores in Ormskirk and others a short drive and DIY market traders, so it seems unlikely that the proposed store would attract a leading chain, which would create a 'down market' image for the development. • Site can be economically developed for alternative employment uses without the need to be supported by retailing. • Retailing is contrary to Local Plan allocation and to Development Brief for the site, which states "retail development, especially food retail, is not considered an appropriate use of the site".
Employment
• Loss of existing manufacturing/engineering premises and therefore loss of these skilled employees in the area. • Other office development could be incorporated on site with high tech jobs giving greater improvements to the town's prosperity. • Should incorporate existing industrial site off Old Boundary Way. • Proposals reflect reduction in employment capability and capacity for the site since most jobs created would be low skilled and low paid whereas a modern business park could offer high skilled, well-paid, permanent jobs. Job density of large retail stores is lower than light industrial or office use. • Allocated Employment Site in Local Plan so should be used for industrial/office use.
Layout and Impact on Surrounding Area
• Increased noise and pollution to surrounding residents. • Existing infrastructure in surrounding area cannot support the development. • Existing brick frontage is in sympathy with general "quiet" appearance and character of the neighbourhood and proposal does not reflect this. • Loss of trees. • Loss of general residential amenity, development not conducive to residential area. • Increased crime. • Change of character of Ormskirk, which is presently a unique, pleasant market town. • Existing building façade should be kept. • Increase air and light pollution. • Proposals lack imagination and site presents opportunity to develop something of which Ormskirk can be proud. • Already problems of drainage and flooding in the area and proposal would exacerbate this. • Increase in fly tipping. • Loss of privacy and light. • Bats have been seen in the area and other wildlife may be affected.
Development Plan
• Residential development more appropriate for the site. • Parts of site would be ideal for low-cost starter homes. • Site should be returned to nature and be a park. • Contrary to adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan (Policies 1.2 and 1.8). • Contrary to Supplementary Planning Guidance for site (para. 3.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.4).
3.2 One letter of support has been received to the original scheme and the amended proposal on the basis that the local resident would prefer to live opposite a site that is alive and working rather than a derelict factory.
4. SUPPORTING STATEMENT
4.1 The applicant has submitted numerous documents to support their case (Retail Assessment, Design Statement, Traffic Assessment, Economic Statement and Supporting Planning Statement and Desk Top Contamination/Site Investigation and Noise Reports). These documents are available on the file for inspection but in essence, they can be summarised as follows:
4.2 The proposal would bring back into beneficial use a derelict site. It will rationalise and make better use of this Brownfield site and provide Ormskirk with modern employment facilities more attractive to potential occupiers than the accommodation currently on site.
4.3 7,822m2 of industrial floor space has already been secured by Atkinson & Kirby. The industrial element of this part of the site will expand to accommodate a further 1,115m2. The proposal will also provide for a high quality mixed-use modern environment comprising new office accommodation of 3.200m2 (amended to 3,363m2) and 2,323m2 (amended to 4,489m2) of light industrial/storage.
4.4 In support of the proposal a holistic approach has been adopted for the access strategy, encouraging a choice of mode and reflecting the needs of mobility impaired. The site is within a 10-minute walk of Ormskirk bus and rail stations and has good accessibility by non-car modes. Analysis of the change in traffic generated by AM and PM peak hours by replacing total employment uses with mixed uses demonstrates that there is no material increase in traffic at most surrounding junctions. Modelling of the Burscough Road/Yew Tree Road junction demonstrates that it operates with high levels of spare capacity and low queues. The details of the proposed mini roundabouts maintain the access needs of the residents and will serve to reduce the speeds of vehicles currently using the road network and thus contribute to the safety of the road and its users.
4.5 The proposal will encourage the growth potential of indigenous business through providing on a speculative basis, a range of accommodation for offices, industry, storage and distribution and facilitate the relocation of a local business (Atkinson & Kirkby), thereby safeguarding at least 80 jobs locally. It would also create over 300 full time equivalent job opportunities and would enhance the profile of Ormskirk as an attractive place to invest, improve business confidence and competitiveness and retain and enhance local services.
4.6 The submitted retail assessment demonstrates that the proposal fits with the strategy of the Development Plan and Government Guidance. Expenditure leakage from Ormskirk is significant so there is untapped local spending capacity to support the proposals and a positive need to do so to address the present unsustainable pattern of bulky goods shopping. The bulky goods nature of the development is complementary with established centres and a proper counter balance to the established facilities at locations beyond the catchment. No harmful level of retail impact results. There are no sequentially preferable sites that are suitable, viable and available within Skelmersdale, Ormskirk or Burscough.
4.7 Whilst the Council wished to possibly see the frontage of the building retained, it was felt that this would have a detrimental affect on the comprehensive regeneration of the site and the costs attached would make the redevelopment financially unviable. With this in mind, the Burscough Road frontage has been considered carefully to reduce the openness of the site. The positioning of the access points also allows the frontage of the development to be considered more sensitively as one entity. The Burscough Road frontage will be landscaped to a depth of 10m which will soften the impact of the development and similar attention will be paid to the Old Boundary Way frontage. Dedicated coach spaces are provided which will be of great benefit to the socio-economic wellbeing of Ormskirk.
4.8 Proposal accords with the following Joint Lancashire Structure Plan policies. Policy 8 – located within the strategic transport corridors and has good public transport services. Policy 11 – priority given to re-use of derelict and degraded land within settlements for appropriate uses. Policy 12 – supports mixed use development to ensure large sites are brought forward for sustainable plans of development. Policy 1 – Ormskirk is a strategic location for development which will contribute towards achieving sustainable patterns of development and urban regeneration, including priority re-use or conversion of existing buildings, then use of sites.
4.9 Proposal accords with the adopted Development Brief for the site which seeks to retain the site for light industrial/office use, but that non-food bulky goods retail and/or leisure uses will only be approved if they do not take up more than 25% of the site area, there is no alternative opportunity in or adjacent the town centre, the development would sustain the vitality and viability of Ormskirk Town Centre and it would provide for a mechanism for the majority of the site to be developed for employment uses. Where possible, trees along the Burscough Road frontage have been retained; the site has been planned on a comprehensive basis and has been designed to avoid unacceptable harm to amenity of nearby residents or the area generally.
4.10 The proposal accords with PPG1 in that a sustainable mixed-use development is achieved; PPG4 in that a large area of previously developed land is brought into beneficial use to regenerate the area and PPG6 in that the tests for retail development have been met.
4.11 The development will be phased to ensure development of the Burscough Road frontage first with subsequent phases subject to timescales as determined by legal agreement. Drainage will also be improved 'downstream' by introducing underground storage on-site and restricting discharge of surface water.
5. OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
5.1 The site is located approximately 500m to the north of Ormskirk Town Centre on the eastern side of Burscough Road. It is bound to the north by housing and industry off Old Boundary Way and to the south by industry off New Court Way. The Ormskirk to Preston railway line runs along the eastern boundary. To the west are residential properties along Burscough Road.
5.2 The site is flat and covers approximately 5.66 hectares (14 acres). It was occupied by a variety of buildings with the main complex, which accommodated a foundry, workshops, warehousing and offices, presently being demolished. The site has been used for the last 100 years by the Hattersley Newman & Hender Company as a valve manufacturing business. The production capacity of the company recently ceased and the property now stands vacant. That is, except for the large industrial building retained on the site to the rear of properties along Burscough Street which is now occupied by the timber specialists Atkinson & Kirby, who relocated from their previous site off Wigan Road, Ormskirk.
5.3 The current application seeks outline planning permission (including details of access and siting) for a mixed-use scheme comprising:
• The retention, refurbishment and extension of the existing two industrial units now occupied by Atkinson & Kirby at the south of the site. • The erection of 3,363m2 (36,200 ft2) of two storey office accommodation contained in four blocks with sole access from the northern end of Burscough Road and a 112 space car park serving this part of the development. • The erection of a 2,787m2 (30,000 ft2) non-food retail unit with 929m2 (1,000 ft2) garden centre attached in the centre of the site with the gable fronting Burscough Road. Attached to the east are three further non-food retail units, one of 697 m2 (7,500 ft2) and two of 465m2 each. Provision of 173 car parking spaces is provided for this part of the development. • The erection of 4,489m2 (48,300ft2) B1/B8 units contained within six blocks of varying size positioned on the eastern side of the site to the rear of the office and retail buildings, as well as in between the retail unit and the retained Atkinson & Kirby unit.
5.4 The main access to the site would be from two mini-roundabouts positioned at the junction of Yew Tree Road and Burscough Street and at the existing access to the site. A secondary access is proposed further north along Burscough Road to serve only the proposed office buildings. A pedestrian/cycle link is proposed from the site to Old Boundary Way. A total of 356 parking spaces are to be provided (this figure does not include that already provided for the Atkinson & Kirby site), including disabled and parent and child spaces. Motorcycle and cycle parking is also provided.
5.5 As part of the proposal, a number of trees are to be removed along the Burscough Road frontage in order to accommodate required visibility splays and improved access arrangements. The number to be removed and replaced elsewhere on site amounts to approximately half the existing tree cover along Burscough Road and includes one sycamore close to the proposed entrance and a group of trees (one plane and one maple) near the junction with Old Boundary Way, all three of which are covered by a TPO.
5.6 The site is allocated for Employment Uses in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policies I.2, I.8, T.1 and T.2 are particularly relevant. Policy I.2 permits the redevelopment or the re-use of land and buildings for industrial, business storage and distribution purposes or other ancillary uses. In this respect, the proposed B1 Office and B1/B8 units are acceptable in principle. The site was allocated in the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan for employment purposes (Policy DE.5) but this has subsequently been changed in the Proposed Pre-Inquiry Changes to the Re- Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan and is now subject to a specific Policy – DE14 B. No objections have been made to this Pre-Inquiry Change. This policy reflects the primary aims of adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on the Hattersley's premises. This SPG was approved in January 2004 and was the subject of public consultation. The SPG is, therefore, a significant material consideration.
5.7 Both the SPG and the new Policy DE14 B state that "the site lies within a designated employment area, of which there are very few within Ormskirk. The Council is keen to retain the site for uses that will provide employment for local people. The preferred option for this site would be light industrial and/or office use, bearing in mind the close proximity to residential properties. An element of non-food bulky goods retail or leisure uses may be permitted, providing it can be demonstrated that such development is necessary to provide a delivery mechanism for the remainder of the site for employment uses, and that the following criteria are satisfied: • It complies with Policy DE10 (retail and other town centre development) • It consists entirely of non-food bulky goods and does not take up more than 25% of the site. • There is a clearly defined need for such a use. • There is no alternative available site in or adjacent to an existing Town Centre, and • A Retail Impact Assessment shows that the development would not harm the vitality and viability of any existing Town Centre. • It would provide a delivery mechanism for the majority of the site to be developed for employment uses (SPG)".
5.8 The SPG also strongly advised that any proposed development should relate well to adjoining or adjacent buildings and the area generally. Particular attention should be paid to achieving high quality of design along the Burscough Road frontage and the existing building fronting Burscough Road should be retained if possible. Existing trees should be retained where possible, the site should be laid out on a sustainable and comprehensive basis and designed to avoid unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby residents.
5.9 Since the proposal contains an element of non-food retail, Policy S.15 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy DE10 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan are also relevant. They require that any proposal for retail development must comply with the sequential approach to site selection, should sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of the existing centres, should be accessible by a choice of means of transport and meet other standards in terms of traffic generation, car parking and residential amenity. Planning Policy Statement 6 provides national background guidance on retail issues.
5.10 I also consider that Policy (12) of the adopted Joint Lancashire Structure Plan is relevant, this policy supports mixed – use development to ensure that large sites are brought forward for sustainable plans of development and to meet a regeneration need.
5.11 The proposal raises a substantial number of important and complex issues. Any development of this "gateway" site on the edge of Ormskirk has to be very carefully assessed. The main issues that have been addressed in order to reach a balanced and carefully considered view are outlined in detail as follows:
5.12 Firstly, Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that when determining a planning application, the decision maker must make their decision in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.13 In this instance, the relevant Development Plan is the West Lancashire Local Plan and the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan. Other material considerations include PPG's/PPS's, the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan and the adopted SPG, as well as any directly related community benefits or disbenefits arising from the proposed development. The most relevant policy, therefore, to which great weight is attached is Policy I.2.8 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan. The site is allocated for employment use and since non-food retailing is proposed on part of the site, the proposal is not wholly in accordance with the adopted Local Plan. However, the applicant claims that the proposed development is in full accord with the adopted SPG for the site and the relevant policy in the emerging Local Plan. Having regard to the SPG, non-food bulky goods retail would be permitted on the site if it satisfied the criteria stated in paragraph 5.7. I will take each of these in turn.
5.14 The total site area is approximately 5.7 hectares. This comprises approximately 1.3 hectares for non-food bulky goods retailing approximately 1.9 hectares for the retained (Atkinson & Kirby) B2 industrial area and approximately 2.5 hectares for the remaining proposed B1/B8 area. The area for non-food retail, therefore, comprises 23% of the total area. The building which is now occupied by Atkinson & Kirby remains as part of the site since outline permission is sought for a future extension and its inclusion within the site forms part of the comprehensive package of development upon which the overall viability of the scheme is based.
5.15 A number of alternative sites in West Lancashire were investigated by the applicant in order to satisfy the sequential test – required under Policy S.15 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan, Policy DE10 of the Re-Deposited Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan and PPS6. The application site is considered to be out-of-centre (a location which is not in or on the edge of a centre but not necessarily outside the urban area as defined in PPS6). Town centre and edge of centre sites should be preferred over out-of-centre sites. Five sites which could accommodate comparison retail floorspace of a type relevant to meet the identified needs were investigated in Skelmersdale (Ingram), Ormskirk (rear 22-24 Church Street, Fads, Park Road and Aughton Street and land to rear of Police Station off Derby Street) and Burscough (West Lancashire Business Centre). All these sites were considered unsuitable due to reasons such as unavailability, limited space, commercially unviable as no road frontage, poor HGV access, existing permissions and trading businesses on site.
5.16 There is an alternative site in the District which is allocated for non-food retail in the adopted Local Plan and for mixed use (including 50% non-food retail) in the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan. This is at Liverpool Road South/Pippin Street, Burscough. This site will be discussed in more detail later. At this stage I would advise that this site is also out-of- centre and as such not any more preferable sequentially, than the application site. I am otherwise satisfied that there are no suitable currently available sequentially preferable sites.
5.17 In terms of assessing need, PPS6 advises that Local Planning Authorities should assess the likely future demand for additional retail and leisure floorspace, normally for a period of five years ahead and the catchment area that is used to assess future need should be realistic and well related to the size and function of the proposed development and take account of competing centres. In terms of qualitative need, provision should be made to allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the whole community.
5.18 In 2003 the Council engaged consultants to carry out a Retail Study of Ormskirk and consultants have also been used to carry out a full Retail Assessment of the proposal. In terms of need, it is useful to compare the findings of this study with the floorspace proposed. The study advises that maintaining the market share of Ormskirk would be the best option – however, there is a significant outflow of expenditure on comparison goods to facilities outside the defined catchment of Ormskirk, as identified by the shopper survey undertaken as part of the Ormskirk Retail Study. Much of this expenditure goes to places such as the Racecourse Retail Park, Aintree; Robin Park, Wigan and Meols Cop Retail Park, Southport. It has been estimated that 2,394 sq.m. additional non-food bulky goods floorspace would be required to maintain Ormskirk's market share up until 2009. However, the additional 3,000 sq.m. proposed as part of the application could be supported by some "claw back" from this leakage of expenditure to neighbouring retail parks, although given the strength of competing centres, it is doubtful that a significant level of "claw back" could be achieved. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that with a natural and realistic increase in growth rates over the next five years in the bulky goods sector, together with some "claw back", there is a demonstrable need for an increase in non-food bulky goods floorspace. Indeed, the Ormskirk Retail Study highlighted that in order for Ormskirk to capture the significant growth in comparison good expenditure, it is likely that there will be a need to enhance future retail provision, thereby, ensuring that this growth is not lost to competing centres and Ormskirk's future market share does not decline.
5.19 It must be noted that as well as satisfying the sequential test, it must also be demonstrated that the proposal would not harm the vitality and viability of any nearby town centre. To assess the potential impact of the proposed development, an assessment of trade draw is required. The Council's retail consultants have indicated that most trade draw will be derived from Ormskirk Town Centre but little trade draw from Burscough or Skelmersdale due to the limited bulky goods offer at these centres. This equates to a potential impact of 4.2% on Ormskirk town Centre and 2% on Skelmersdale and whilst these are higher percentages than those identified by the applicant, it is considered that neither are likely to result in a significant detrimental impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centres. Even if the "worst case" scenario of all of the proposed development's turnover being drawn from Ormskirk town centre (equating to a potential impact of 8%), it is still considered that there would be no significant detrimental impact given the overall strength of the town centre.
5.20 Having regard to retailing matters, it is therefore considered by the Council's retail consultants that the proposal, considered in isolation, complies with Policy DE10 of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement West Lancashire Local Plan as there is sufficient capacity to support the proposed development in retail terms, through a marginal increase in Ormskirk's market share for comparison goods. Furthermore, there are no sequentially preferable sites and the development will have no significant detrimental impact upon the vitality and viability of any centres within the catchment provided an appropriate condition is attached restricting the range of goods permitted to be sold to only "bulky goods".
5.21 At this point, I would draw Members' attention to another application on this agenda for a non-food bulky goods retail development at Liverpool Road South/Pippin Street, Burscough (8/05/0474). The decision on both applications needs to be taken on their individual merits. However, the potential impact of these schemes on existing town centres (notably Ormskirk) will vary depending upon whether only one or both schemes are approved. In coming to decisions on these applications therefore it is necessary to consider the "what if scenario" of the other proposal being approved.
5.22 In relation to the Pippin Street Scheme, the retail advisers for the applicants argue that their scheme will divert £2.1 million from Ormskirk Town Centre which they contend would be a modest trade impact of 4%. They further contend that this would be outstripped by increases in "bulky goods" retail spending by residents of Ormskirk/Burscough up to 2009. Our own retail advisers, on the other hand, argue that the Pippin Street Scheme will divert some £5.2 million from Ormskirk Town Centre representing a possible trade impact of nearer to 9% than the applicants suggested 4%. However, in taking account of retail growth rates since the Ormskirk Retail Study was undertaken, our advisers have indicated that total trade impact will be less and may well be nearer to 4.8%.
5.23 In relation to the "Hattersley" Scheme, the development advisers for the applicants argue that their scheme will divert about £1.1 million from Ormskirk Town Centre equating to a trade impact of 1.8% on total retail turnover. They also argue that the impact on Skelmersdale Town Centre will be about 0.4% with no discernable impact on Burscough. Our own retail advisers suggest that the Hattersley Scheme will divert some £4.44 million from Ormskirk Town Centre equating to a potential trade impact of 4.2% compared to the applicants suggested 1.8%. For Skelmersdale our advisers suggest a trade impact of 2% compared to the 0.4% suggested by the applicants.
5.24 Clearly, whilst some common views are being expressed by the three sets of retail consultants in relation to a quantitative and qualitative need for more non-food bulky goods retailing in the District, there are differences on the assessed impacts additional provision will have on our existing centres – particularly Ormskirk. Our advisers state that, taking into account existing commitments and assuming an increase in market share of 20% - 22½%, there is a surplus capacity by 2009 of between £10.0 million and £14.0 million of expenditure on comparison goods. Given the Hattersley Centre is estimated to generate £7 million of expenditure and the Pippin Street Scheme £14.9 million of expenditure this means according to our advisers that there is capacity to support one or the other scheme but not both on the scale currently proposed. This also suggests that if the Pippin Street Scheme was similar in scale to the Hattersleys Scheme both could be accommodated on the basis of these capacity figures. The consultants also advise that by reducing the scale of the Pippin Street Scheme it would be more in scale with the area and would better complement the role and functions of the nearby centres. The one important caveat to this is that our advisers contend that because both the proposals for comparison goods development are for "bulky goods" they will generally compete with each other and the effect of this will be to reduce the impact on the nearby town centres. In this respect it is seen as important to attach conditions to any permission granted restricting the goods sold to "bulky goods" and restricting the sub-division of units to avoid competing with units in Ormskirk and Burscough Town Centres.
5.25 The applicant argues that the inclusion of an element of non-food retail within the proposal is necessary in order to cross fund the remediation and delivery of employment generating uses on the site. They claim in an economic statement that without this mixed-use proposal, the costs involved in comprehensively developing the site for employment uses alone, would be financially unviable. I have questioned this contention but I have been reassured by the Executive Manager of Regeneration and Property, who has assessed the development's capital values, build costs and appraisal methodology. I am advised that the price paid for the site appears to be as per market expectations and developers profit of 10% is below developers usual aspirations. Although a large part of the site has been subsequently sold after refurbishment to Atkinson & Kirby, it is stated that the monies from the sale have been ploughed back in to cover expenditure costs such as refurbishment, site remediation, infrastructure, professional fees, funding and legal fees. Overall, it is argued that, in terms of income, the rental levels and yields are all as per market expectations and whilst some development costs may be estimated, they are considered reasonably accurate and viewed as a whole, the development costs are considered fundamentally robust. As such, the advice offered is that the retail element is required in order to ensure delivery of the remainder of the site for employment purposes. This can be ensured by legal agreement.
5.26 As stated earlier, there are few employment areas in Ormskirk and the retention of the site for uses that will provide employment for local people is very important. Approximately 380 full-time equivalent jobs would be created as a result of the proposed development. 80 of these have already been secured on the Atkinson & Kirby site. The use of 25% of the site area for non- food retail development does mean that only three quarters of the site would be retained in industrial, business, storage or distribution purposes. This loss of industrial land has to be weighed against the benefit of securing the speculative but comprehensive delivery of the remaining land for industrial/office purposes. In approving a non-food retail development on the site, it is argued this would facilitate demolition and clearance of existing buildings, site remediation, infrastructure and highway improvement works and substantial completion of all buildings within a phased programme. It is also significant that the adopted SPG permits an element of non-food bulky goods retail on the site provided detailed criteria as explained in paragraphs 5.14 to 5.21 are satisfied. Therefore, whilst the proposal is not in full accordance with Policy I.2.8 of the adopted Local Plan, it is in accordance in terms of principle, with the adopted SPG for the site.
5.27 Turning to highway matters, the SPG states that uses which would attract large volumes of traffic would only be permitted if a transport assessment showed that it would not lead to unacceptable levels of congestion in Ormskirk. A detailed Travel Plan and Transport Assessment have been produced and car parking standards have been met. However, the site is a 10-minute walk from Ormskirk Bus and Rail Stations. Whilst there are some bus services passing the site on Burscough Road, the majority of bus services would not serve this site, as such the site could not be described as being well served by public transport. It is unlikely that many people will travel to a non- food bulky goods store by public transport, but staff and visitors should be encouraged to do so, as such, Lancashire County Council have recommended that a commuted sum be payable to upgrade the existing bus and rail services. A 5-bay coach park is to be provided on site, which will aid visiting coach parties to be accommodated close to the town centre, this has been an issue within the area for many years. 5.28 The Transport Assessment clearly shows that there would be an overall increase in traffic distribution in the surrounding area. The junctions at which it is expected to generate an increase in traffic of more than 5% are the site/Burscough Road, Derby Street West and County Road/Burscough Road. Lancashire County Council Highways are satisfied that the proposal would have no detrimental affect upon the surrounding highway network in terms of the distribution of generated traffic.
5.29 The original application proposed access to the site from two points – one from the existing main access opposite number 2 Burscough Road and one large roundabout in front of 11 – 21 Burscough Road. It was considered that this option would result in the loss of the more residential nature of the Burscough Road frontage and many trees. It also "opened-up" the site in a way which reflected standard retail park developments in other parts of the country. As a result of these concerns, amended access arrangements have been submitted. It is now proposed to access the B1 office units separately directly off Burscough Road, opposite 23 and 25 Burscough Road. The main access to the remainder of the site will be off a double mini-roundabout, that is two mini-roundabouts close together at the junction with Yew Tree Road and the existing main site entrance. Lancashire County Council Highways comment that this is acceptable in principle subject to more detailed specifications being approved. Car parking appears acceptable subject to minor revisions for cycle and motorcycle parking.
5.30 The amended access arrangement into the site has resulted in a layout which better respects the existing character of the Burscough Road frontage. Whilst the SPG stated that the existing building fronting Burscough Road should be retained where feasible, the applicant has confirmed that this could not be achieved if the Council wished to see a comprehensive regeneration of the site. It is regrettable that the existing brick building could not be incorporated into the scheme. However, I am satisfied that provided most, if not all, of the buildings proposed along the Burscough Road frontage are constructed first and are designed to a high quality, the existing feel of a continuous but not overly dominant frontage could be achieved. The buildings proposed along this main frontage are proposed to be of a similar height and along a similar building line as the existing building. This will ensure that the proposed development sits comfortably in the street scene, respecting the characteristics of the dwellings opposite.
5.31 The site is also laid out such that the proposed offices back onto the northern boundary of the site, thus softening the impact of the development on the properties off Old Boundary Way. The gables of the dwellings closest to the proposed offices are at a distance of 27m away and I consider no significant loss of privacy would occur. Properties along Burscough Road would be 37m from the proposed development.
5.32 The light industrial units and their service facilities back onto the railway embankment to the east. The retail element has been orientated so that the gable of the main building and the garden centre front onto Burscough Road with the servicing positioned behind. The detailing of this prominent gable and the wall enclosing the garden centre should be sensitively designed. It is proposed that the height of these buildings will be no greater than 9m to the ridge.
5.33 Whilst some noise will be generated by the proposed activities on the site, it will mainly be of a different source than the last industrial use on the site. Noise will be generated by the proposed B1 and B8 units. However, these are sited at the rear of the site, adjacent to the railway embankment, access into industrial units off Old Boundary Way and the Atkinson & Kirby building adjacent to New Court Way. The only unit that will, in my opinion, generate noise adjacent to a residential property is that proposed at the entrance adjacent to 204 Burscough Street. Noise level and hours of operation restrictions could be conditioned on this particular unit. The majority of noise created by the proposed development would be from additional traffic generated. The Road Traffic Noise Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant demonstrates proposed traffic noise increased over existing levels of between 0.2 to 1.1 dB(A) on Burscough Road and Yew Tree Road. These are relatively low levels and would be similar to those expected if the site was used wholly as an employment site. It is my view that the site is an allocated employment site and the traffic noise levels and air pollution levels expected to be generated by the proposed development must be weighed against the potential noise and air pollution levels of the site should it be used solely for general industrial uses.
5.34 Concerns have been expressed of increased light pollution as a result of the proposed development. All of the servicing areas are sited centrally or at the rear of the site and therefore any impact on surrounding residential properties from noise and light pollution would be screened by the buildings along the Burscough Road and Old Boundary Way frontages. The main source of light pollution would be from the car park fronting the retail units and the position, height and type of proposed lighting would be carefully considered at reserved matters stage.
5.35 A number of trees around the site are covered by Tree Preservation Orders. It is proposed that, in total, 3 trees subject to a TPO would be removed. These would be replaced within the site, most likely along the Burscough Road frontage, where a 10m strip of landscaping is proposed. Additional landscaping is also proposed along the boundary with Old Boundary Way.
5.36 It is recognised that there are flooding problems in the vicinity of the site, particularly along Pine Drive. This is due to the culverted Abbey Brook which runs at the rear of properties along Pine Drive. The current surface water drainage system comprises a number of gulleys that eventually combine prior to discharge into a culvert and then into Abbey Brook. This is currently unregulated and at periods of heavy rain, flooding occurs. The proposed drainage for the site must follow Sustainable Urban Drainage System guidelines as set by the Local Authority, United Utilities and the Environment Agency. It is proposed that water falling on the site will be directed through pipes, to underground storage, from which discharge will be controlled via a control device, only to be discharged at a maximum rate set by the Environment Agency.
Summary
5.37 In summarising the above issues, the starting point for making a decision is the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and the adopted SPG for the site. The site is allocated for employment uses and these uses are preferred in the SPG. 75% of the site is retained for such uses and therefore complies with the Development Plan. 25% of the site is proposed for non-food bulky goods retail and it is this element which has been examined in detail in order to determine whether or not it is absolutely necessary to deliver the comprehensive redevelopment of the rest of the site for employment purposes. Given the significant nature of the proposals, the Council engaged the services of a retail consultant to assess the need and impact of the proposed non-food bulky goods element of the proposal. The consultant's view is that there is a need for this kind of development in order to retain Ormskirk's market share in non-food retailing and in "clawing back" some of that currently lost to retail parks outside the District. Furthermore, they also concluded that the proposed retail element on its own would not affect the vitality and viability of Ormskirk, Skelmersdale or Burscough Town Centres, provided that it was restricted to non-food bulky goods only. They also found that there were no sequentially preferable sites. It is important to consider whether or not the allocated site at Liverpool Road South/Pippin Street is sequentially preferable. Although it is an allocated site in terms of PPS6, it is also classed as out centre and therefore not sequentially preferable.
5.38 The financial information submitted with the application has been examined by the Executive Manager for Regeneration and Property, who is of the view that it demonstrates in economic terms that a significant investment would be necessary to secure the comprehensive redevelopment of the site. It is possible for the site to be developed in totality for industrial/business use, however, significant costs would be required to provide an adequate access point, remediation of the contaminated site, demolition and infrastructure. It is argued that it would be most likely that, without the additional funds a retail use could generate for the site, that it would be developed in a piecemeal way over many years.
5.39 The proposed development is contrary to the adopted Local Plan, however, other material considerations weigh in its favour namely, it complies with the SPG for the site; the retail element will ensure that the site is comprehensively redeveloped over a set period of time which can be managed by legal agreement, and coach parking spaces are provided close to Ormskirk Town Centre. I acknowledge that due to the uniqueness of this type of proposal in the District, this is a finely balanced judgement to make. If non-food bulky goods retailing is to be allowed as a form of enabling development, then some loss of employment land would need to be accepted. It may also be the case that one or more of the existing non-food bulky goods stores in the Town Centre may be affected but this should be weighed against additional job creation in the proposed store and the consultant's analysis that overall, the vitality and viability of the Town Centre would not be harmed. It also needs to be considered whether or not residential amenity would be harmed significantly more by the introduction of the non-food retail element rather than industrial use. On balance, I believe that, in this case, the scale of the impact of the non-food retail element and benefits arising from the proposal are not outweighed by policy considerations and that permission should be granted subject to a very important legal undertaking regarding phasing of development to ensure effective delivery of the employment element of the proposal.
5.40 Whilst I am recommending approval of this proposal based on its own merits, I would refer Members to my earlier paragraphs 5.21, 5.22 and 5.23 regarding the implications of approving two similar developments and their cumulative impact on existing town centres.
6. DEPARTURE APPLICATION
6.1 In my view, this proposal is a departure from the Development Plan in that it involves non-food retail development on an allocated employment site. However, it is also my view that the proposed development would not significantly prejudice the implementation of the Development Plan's policies and proposals because it is consistent with the adopted SPG for the site it is an employment led mixed use scheme. Council's retail consultants have confirmed the proposal does not unacceptably impact upon the District's town centres and, therefore, the retail strategy in the Development Plan is not prejudiced and the emerging allocation in the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan demonstrates the current land use strategy for the District. As such, it is not considered necessary to refer the application to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Council is mindful to approve it.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the Executive Manager Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to the developer entering into a Section 106 Agreement to secure a bond of an appropriate sum to ensure completion of the comprehensive redevelopment of the site; to deliver five coach spaces and to provide an appropriate commuted sum as a contribution towards public transport infrastructure.
7.2 That planning permission be subject to the following conditions:
1. SCT01 Standard time (Outline planning permission) 2. SCP01 In accordance with Drawing Ref: 7106/09/E received on 13.05.05. 3(i) Unit referenced A on the Plan Ref: Phasing Plan shall not be brought into use until units referred 1, 2, & 3 have been substantially completed (wind and water-tight including external walls, windows, doors and roof). And, within the land edged in green: • Roads and footways are provided at least to basecoat level. • Off-site highways works/S278 works are completed. • Underground services are provided. • Boundary treatment to the Burscough Road frontage is provided. • The coach parking laid out. All to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
3(ii) Units referenced B, C and D on the Plan Ref: Phasing Plan shall not be occupied until units referenced I, II, III IV and V have been substantially completed (wind and water tight including external walls, windows, doors and roof). 3(iii) Within 18 months of the occupation of 50% of the floorspace of units 1, 2, and 3, the units referenced 4, 5, VI, VII, VII, IX and X shall be substantially completed (wind and water tight including external walls, windows, doors and roof) and all remaining site works completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. All the above shall be carried out unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4. There shall be no internal alterations or sub-division of the non-food retail units either vertically or horizontally which would result in an increase in the number of retail units and/or an increase in retail floor space. 5. The non-food units hereby approved shall be used solely for the retail sales of the following: DIY home improvement goods, furnishings, beds, electrical goods, furniture and floor coverings and for no other purpose including any other purpose in Class A1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification. 6. SCB14 Details of materials. 7. No buildings on site shall be higher from ground floor level (measured externally) than 9m. 8. SCB12 Access for the disabled. 9. SCB26 Submit levels. 10. SCB27 Sound insulation scheme (Unit 1 on Plan Ref: …… inserted instead of 'building'). 11. SCC01 No outside storage. 12. SCD03 Drainage. 13. No part of the development shall be commenced until all the highway works have been constructed in accordance with a scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. 14. SCH14 Mark out car park. 15. SCH15 Wheel cleaning provision. 16. SCL11 Submit landscaping implement prior to commencement of the use of any buildings. 17. SCL05 Detailed landscape survey – Condition 16/Scale 1:500. 18. SCL14 Screen walls – replace 'dwelling' with 'building'. 19. SCL16 Tree protection. 20. SCL18 Service runs adjacent trees. 21. SCN01 Machinery in building. 22. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved, full details of lighting to be used on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 23. The units identified as 1 to 5 Plan Ref: Phasing Plan, shall be used for B1 office use only and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class B1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use classes) Order 1987 and any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order. 24. The units identified as 1 to X on Plan Ref: Phasing Plan, shall be used for B1 or B8 use only. 25. The non-food retail units shall only be open for business during the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday to Saturday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 26. The units identified as I, II, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X on the Plan Ref: Phasing Plan, shall only be open for business and deliveries between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday to Saturday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Sundays and Bank Holidays. 27. The rating level of noise from fixed equipment, machinery and industrial activities on the site (that part which is new build, shall not exceed the background noise level by more than 3dB(A) at any time, as measured on the boundary of any nearby noise sensitive premises. The measurements shall be made according to BS 4142 : 1997 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. 28. A Business Travel Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and recommendations carried out therein be implemented within a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reasons
1. RCT01 Standard time reason (Outline) 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt – Policy 1.8 3. To ensure that the site is comprehensively redeveloped in accordance with the adopted SPG for the site and in accordance with Policy 1.2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 4. To safeguard the vitality and viability of Ormskirk Town Centre in accordance with PPS6 and Policy S15 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 5. To safeguard the vitality and viability of Ormskirk Town Centre in accordance with PPS6 and Policy S15 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 6. RCB07 External appearance – Policy 1.8 7. RCB07 External appearance – Policy 1.8 8. RCH08 Effective use of car park. 9. RCD01 Outline approval. 10. RCN01 Minimise noise 11. RCB09 Unsightliness 12. RCD03 Ensure site drained. 13. RCH01 Road safety. 14. RCH08 Effective use of car park. 15. RCH09 Avoid mud on road. 16. RCL09 Assimilate development. 17. RCL07 Assess effect on trees. 18. RCL01 Assimilate development. 19. RCL06 Tree health 20. RCL06 Tree health 21. RCN01 Minimise noise. 22. RCB03 Character of – replace 'property' with 'site' – Policy 1.8 23. RCM03 Amenities of others – Policy I.8 24. RCM03 Amenities of others – Policy I.8 25. RCM03 Amenities of others – Policy I.8 26. RCM03 Amenities of others – Policy I.8 27. RCM03 Amenities of others – Policy I.8 28. RCM03 Amenities of others – Policy I.8
Special Reason for Approval
SRA02 (i) Policy I.2 Development in Employment Areas. Policy I.8 Development Criteria for Industrial/Business Development. Policy T.1 Major Development. Policy T.2 Road Traffic and Development. Policy S.15 Out of Centre Retail Developments Intended to Serve a Large Catchment Area.
(ii) Policy I.2 Development in Employment Areas.
(iii) Namely, that the proposal complies with the Council's adopted SPG for the site and Policy DE14 Development Opportunity Sites of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan in that the element of non-food retail on the site would ensure that the remainder of the site is comprehensively developed for employment purposes.
AV/JHR/SC
No. 7 APPLICATION No. 8/2005/0949 LOCATION MILL BROW WATER TREATMENT WORKS, SOUTHPORT ROAD, SCARISBRICK PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT BY TELECOMMUNICATIONS CODE SYSTEM OPERATOR – ERECTION OF 6M FLAGPOLE ANTENNA AND 2 NO. 600MM TRANSMISSION DISHES AND 6 EQUIPMENT CABINETS LOCATED ON THE ROOF APPLICANT ORANGE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES LIMITED WARD SCARISBRICK PARISH SCARISBRICK 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 15.09.05.
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 8/2005/0120 REFUSED. 31.03.05. Development by Telecommunications Code System Operator – Erection of 6m flagpole antenna and 2 No. 600mm transmission dishes and 6 equipment cabinets located on the roof.
8/2004/0731 REFUSED. 06.07.04. – Development by Telecommunications Code System Operator – Erection of 3 No. pole mounted antennas and 2 No. transmission dishes and 10 equipment cabinets located on the roof.
8/2004/0052 REFUSED. 25.02.04. – Development by Telecommunications Code System Operator – Erection of a 6m high sub pole with 3 No. antennas and 2 No. dishes with 10 equipment cabinets located on the roof of the Treatment Works.
2.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
2.1 SCARISBRICK PARISH COUNCIL – No representations have been received.
3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Four letters of objection have been received. The grounds of the objection being:
• Water Treatment Works is visible from many roads around Scarisbrick and Halsall. These masts would spoil the visual amenity.
• Many concerns about the health risks that local residents may face if this application is granted.
• Adverse effect upon the value of properties.
4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION
4.1 Applicant’s Agent has submitted a supporting statement. It is contained on the application file and on the Council’s website for inspection but makes the following points:-
• Installation does not significantly harm the openness of the Green Belt, as it utilises an existing building to site the antennas and equipment. If the Local Planning Authority considers that the installation does harm the openness of the Green Belt, then that degree of harm must be weighed against the advantages that telecommunications bring and the very special circumstances (i.e. that there is no alternative site in the urban area that could provide this service) need to be taken into consideration. We believe that the advantages of this installation significantly outweigh any minor impact on the Green Belt.
• PPG states that it is not for the Local Planning Authority to seek to replicate through the planning system controls under the health and safety regime as it is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive. The Government Guidelines state that provided a proposed base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure then it should not be necessary for the Local Planning Authority to consider the health effects and concerns about them. Confirms that the proposed base station will comply with ICNIRP guidelines, with the certificate attached to the application. Aware of perceived health and safety issues concerning radio frequency and have enclosed a separate Health and Safety Statement.
• The proposed site will solve the coverage problems in the Scarisbrick area. In addition to the enhanced GSM coverage the site will also enable Third Generation (3G) Mobile Services to be provided to the Scarisbrick area.
5.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
5.1 The site comprises of the Mill Brow Water Treatment Works situated upon the western side of Southport Road (A570T), on the brow of a hill within the Green Belt. The site has two residential properties to the north within approximately 25m, one of which, Mill House, is a Grade II Listed Building. Pinfold School is within 350 metres.
5.2 This application seeks prior approval for both the siting and design of the proposed telecommunications equipment located on the roof of the building.
5.3 The proposals fall to be considered under Policies U.4 “Telecommunications” and GB.1 “Control over Development in the Green Belt” of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and DS2 “Protecting the Green Belt” and SC10 “Telecommunications” of the Re-Deposit Replacement Local Plan. 5.4 The Treatment Works building is a large building approximately 9m in height with a centrally located tower to a height of approximately 18 metres. Its location on the brow of a hill, means that this landmark building is visible from much of the surrounding low-lying land and over some considerable distances particularly to the south and west. Currently, attached to the tower are both an aerial and a flagpole. Both the aerial and flagpole project above the roof of the tower by approximately 5m and 4m respectively.
5.5 As part of the proposals, the existing aerial would be removed as will the existing flagpole. The existing flagpole will be replaced by a 6m flagpole antenna. In addition, two 600mm diameter dishes will be attached using brackets to the tower (one to the north and one to the south elevations) with a maximum projection above the roof of the tower of 1m. The proposals also include the erection of a 1m high free-standing handrail on the top of the tower and the siting on the roof of the main building of six (1.7m high) equipment cabinets.
5.6 Members may recall that a similar application was reported to your Committee on the 17th March 2005 (08/05/0120). Whilst I recommended that permission be granted it was the Committee’s decision to refuse on the grounds that the proposals by virtue of their location, design and height would intrude into the open countryside and Green Belt and have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt and open countryside location.
5.7. This is an almost identical application to that refused, with the exception that the six equipment cabinets have been repositioned to be in a straight line behind the tower on the west elevation of the building. Although some of this equipment will be visible from Southport Road, given that there is an existing aerial and flagpole which projects above the roof of the tower which will be removed, I consider that there will be no significant increase detrimental visual impact upon the building, locality or wider Green Belt.
5.8 The setting of the nearby listed building is not considered to be harmed by the proposals as the property is visually detached from the application site.
5.9 The applicant’s agent has submitted a declaration of conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines and this is sufficient to override concerns regarding the proposal on the grounds of possible health impacts.
5.10 Given the above my recommendation as per the previous planning application is that permission be granted.
6.0 RECOMMENDATION
6.1 That planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-
1. SCT02 Standard time condition 2. SCP01 Plan Refs. KDC/D3777/01 received on 22nd July 2005 KDC/D3777/02 Rev. A received on 22nd July 2005 KDC/D3777/03 Rev. E received on 22nd July 2005 KDC/D3777/06 Rev. D received on 22nd July 2005 KDC/D3777/04 Rev. F received on 22nd July 2005 KDC/D3777/05 Rev. C received on 22nd July 2005 KDC/D3777/08 Received on 18th August 2005 KDC/D3777/09 Received on 18th August 2005 KDC/D3777/10 Received on 18th August 2005
3. Notwithstanding the annotations on the Approved Plans, all proposed equipment, flagpole, access, shall be finished in a colour to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and retained in such a colour thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4. Prior to the installation of the equipment hereby approved, both the existing flagpole and aerial shall be completely removed from the building.
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard time reason 2. RCM04 Policy U.4 3. RCB07 External appearance. Policy U.4 4. To prevent visual clutter and so ensure compliance with Policy U.4 of the Adopted West Lancashire Local Plan.
Reasons for Approval
1. SRA01 Special Approval Reason Policies U.4. and GB.1 and is namely considered no significant increase detrimental impact upon the building, area and Green Belt and the requirement and legal obligation for the electronic code system operator to provide coverage in the locality and lack of suitable alternative sites.
AW/JRH/HA ------
No. 8 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0758 LOCATION FETTLERS WHARF MARINA, STATION ROAD, RUFFORD PROPOSAL OUTLINE – CREATION OF MARINA BASIN (INCLUDING DETAILS OF SITING AND MEANS OF ACCESS) AND PROVISION OF PARKING AREAS APPLICANT MR A. MAWDSLEY WARD RUFFORD PARISH RUFFORD 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 17/8/05
1. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 8/01/1016 GRANTED. 6.9.02. Land on opposite side of Station Road. Change of use of land for marina development, including erection of facilities building; conversion of two storey building to form marina reception/store/office, tea room with courtyard and first floor living accommodation; new access to Station Road and new opening to canal; provision of car parking/servicing areas and landscaping. 8/01/1267 GRANTED. 30.6.03. Diamond Jubilee Road. Use of land as marina with facilities building and workshop; conversion and extensions to existing agricultural buildings to café, craft shops, chandlery, 14 residential units and substation. 8/04/1301 WITHDRAWN. 9.12.04. Fettlers Wharf Marina. Outline – creation of marina basin (including details of siting and means of access) and provision of parking areas.
2. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 County Archaeologist (14.7.05) – the site lies close to an area of well- preserved archaeological features at Manor House and given the similarity in underlying geology and topography, it is considered to have the potential to contain similar archaeological remains. The proposed development would have a significant and damaging impact on any archaeological remains which may survive below the site. It is therefore recommended that the site be archaeologically evaluated prior to the determination of the application in line with PPG16 and Policy EN6 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan.
2.2 United Utilities (15.7.05) – no objection provided full details of drainage are discussed with United Utilities.
2.3 Executive Manager Community Services (18.7.05) – recommend landfill gas disclaimer.
2.4 County Ecologist (20.7.05) – The Leeds-Liverpool Canal Rufford Branch Biological Heritage Site is close to the site and whilst the ecological assessment states there is little or no emergent or bank side vegetation within 500m of the proposed marina and therefore unlikely to cause significant impact on the BHS by construction activities, there is likely to be an increase in boat traffic which may have implications for the whole BHS. A full assessment should be made by the applicant and mitigation proposals presented. It is unlikely the proposal would have significant impact on any population of great crested newts or bats. The site has potential to support nesting birds and works during the breeding season should be avoided. The proposed 15m buffer zone around the ditch would be sufficient to prevent impacts on water voles. Proposed tree planting alongside the drain would reduce suitability of habitat for water voles and should be avoided. The landscaping/restoration proposals do not create enough opportunities to enhance habitat creation and maintaining connectivity also needs to be addressed as the current proposal would result in the isolation of habitats between Station Road and the site.
2.5 The Wildlife Trust (21.7.05) – The Ecological Assessment submitted has addressed many of the issues raised in response to the previous application. However, the report does not address likely impact on biodiversity consequent on an increase in boat passage numbers on the Rufford Branch BHS resultant from the development. Reiterate comments made by County Ecologist regarding Great Crested Newts, bats, Birds and water voles and landscaping/restoration. If minded to approve, a habitat management plan should be required by legal agreement to ensure appropriate aftercare and long-term management of the habitat.
2.6 British Waterways (25.7.05) – generally supportive of proposals of this nature, however a water supply demand assessment needs to be carried out together with a facilities survey to ensure there is sufficient water and facilities available as there is a possibility that further accommodation works may be required off-site to facilitate this. Various other agreements required with British Waterways which could be covered by condition e.g. structural stability, landscaping, water vole protection.
2.7 Environment Agency (27.7.05) – no objection in principle. The re-submission includes an ecological assessment which addresses the Environment Agency’s previous concerns and confirms that the proposal will not detrimentally impact upon the aquatic environment. Recommend conditions requiring details of boundary treatment adjacent to the ditch and regrading of the ditch along the northern boundary to protect water vole habitat and a condition to provide compensatory flood storage works as the site lies with flood zone 3 (high-risk).
2.8 The National Trust (6.8.05) – object. (Contrary to the following policies; ER.1: Management of the North West’s Natural, Built and Historic Environment, ER.3: Built Heritage and EC.9: Tourism and Recreation of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West; Policy 5: Green Belt, Policy 21: Natural and Man-Made Heritage, Policy 20: Lancashire’s Landscapes and Policy 19: Tourism of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan; Policies GB.1, GB.2, GB.4, LN.1, LN.2(a), LN.7, LN.9, LN.10, LN.14, CA.1 and CA.3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan, Policies DS1, DS2, GD1, EN1, EN4, EN7 and DE15 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan. The proposed development has failed to consider the merits and characteristics of the site and its surroundings, especially the relevant elements of the natural and built environment. These include the adjacent farmland owned and managed by the Trust, the historic importance of Rufford Old Hall, its historic garden and parkland, and the ecological importance of the site and nearby land and water. The development is inappropriate in principle within the Green Belt and very special circumstances to seek to justify it have not been put forward. The proposed marina and associated engineering works, especially its car parks and bridge, would be incongruous elements in this special location that would be detrimental to the nearby Conservation Area, its setting and the setting of the various listed buildings on the Rufford Old Hall site, including views into and out from the site. It is also noted that the proposal will also involve the loss of agricultural land and potentially lead to traffic dangers on the B5246. The submitted landscape report does not consider the landscape character of the site and its environs and fails to identify Rufford Old Hall and its historic park/garden.
2.9 Executive Manager Community Services (16.8.05) – raises some concerns as development is in close proximity to residential properties. Increased noise due to boat manoeuvring and engine/generators running for several hours, also causing emissions of diesel. Recommend that residential moorings are not allowed.
3. VIEWS OF THE PARISH COUNCIL
3.1 RUFFORD P.C. (21.7.05) – no objection.
4. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Eleven letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:
• no overriding local public need for a third marina, out sizing the village, already 230 berths approved in Rufford. • no significant number of jobs created. • spoil an area of landscape history of regional importance. • loss of view and of a picturesque site featured on paintings and calendars. • loss of privacy from raised bridge over entrance. • raised bridge would be an eyesore and would dominate the landscape. • raised bridge may be a road bridge as National Trust need access to the adjoining field. • land is Grade 1 and animals have grazed it for the last 5 years. • site is home to barn owls, bats, water voles, kingfishers, woodpeckers, house martins and herons which would be driven away. • possible harm to old trees along canal side. • bank erosion by turning and bumping barges would create a risk to nearby properties. • if the marina is not economically viable, the effect on the land will be irreversible. • more boats in the village than houses. • Biological Heritage Site and wildlife corridor. • detrimentally change of character of the area and the Green Belt. • noise, disruption and inconvenience during construction. • lack of parking facilities for boat owners and tourists. • loss of Green Belt land. • increased traffic. • increased noise pollution. • not compatible with environmental legislation (Habitat Directive). • light pollution. • Nature Conservation Site is adjacent. • houses along Church Road have mooring rights and if a boat was moored, it would be very difficult for boats to manoeuvre into the marina. • if allowed, should be non-residential boats. • could affect River Douglas flood defences. • village facilities and amenities could not cope. • harm the character of the conservation area and Rufford Old Hall • unnecessary intrusion into an otherwise agricultural area. • proposed entrance from marina to canal prevents access and right of way to farmland on north boundary of site.
4.2 One letter of support has been received from a resident in Ormskirk who considers that the current Fettlers Wharf is very attractive and an asset to the area. He is also purchasing a boat which will be based at Fettlers Wharf and will mainly use the canal in West Lancs, providing a boost to the local economy. The Millennium Ribble Link has ensured the Rufford Branch has centre stage in the canal system and District Waterways has a policy to promote development of marinas.
5. SUPPORTING STATEMENT
5.1 The applicant has provided a landscape report which assesses the current landscape framework of the site and on visual aspects of the development. He has also submitted a ecological assessment which identifies water voles along the ditch on the northern boundary of the site and proposes mitigation measures by ensuring a 15m buffer strip is provided to the marina edge. No bat or European protected bird species were identified and no detrimental impact on the nearby Biological Heritage Site would be caused.
6. OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 The site is formed by an ‘L’ shaped field located on the north side of Station Road, with its eastern and western boundaries formed by the Ormskirk to Preston railway line and the Leeds/Liverpool Canal respectively. Also along the eastern boundary is a light engineering works and Asley Lodge Care Home is located within the southern part of the overall site. To the north is open agricultural land owned by The National Trust and to the south side of Station Road is an existing marina, known as Fettlers Wharf. The site is predominantly open grassland.
6.2 The application is in outline with only details of siting and means of access forming part of the proposal. A site plan shows a proposed marina basin measuring approximately 160m long x 60m wide with a slipway leading to a car park area on the eastern side of the site. Access is proposed off an existing access, from Station Road, past the western elevation of Asley Lodge, and leading behind the Care Home to the car park. The entrance to the marina basin is directly from the Leeds/Liverpool Canal, opposite No.35 Church Road, with the towpath diverted over a bridge crossing the marina entrance. Members may recall a similar application was submitted last year (8/2004/1301) but withdrawn by the applicant prior to the Committee meeting.
6.3 The site is within the Green Belt and adjacent to the Rufford Park Conservation Area and alongside two County Biological Heritage Sites (the railway line and the canal) and utilises a large area of agricultural land. These designations determine the policies against which the application needs to be assessed, namely GB.1, GB.2, GB.4, LN.1, LN.2, LN.7, LN.9, LN.10, LN.14 and CA.3 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policies DS.2, EN.1, GD.1.10, GD.1.1 and EN.4 of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement West Lancashire Local Plan.
6.4 Policies GB.1 and GB.2 (DS.2) set out the forms of development which are appropriate within the Green Belt. A marina is regarded as a recreational use and the view has been accepted on the previous two applications for marinas in the immediate area, that the use is in principle, and appropriate use in the Green Belt. However, the recreational facility must be essential and must maintain the openness of the land and would not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt.
6.5 No justification has been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that the facility is essential. It is claimed that there is a waiting list of possible people interested in a berth within the proposed marina. However, the existing marina at Fettlers Wharf provides for 96 berths and the approved St Mary’s marina, which is currently being implemented, provides for a further 101 berths. There is already therefore, permission for a total of 197 berths within very close proximity, all within the village of Rufford and all within the Green Belt. I am unconvinced that a third marina is sustainable or essential and is therefore inappropriate development. Furthermore, I consider that the cumulative impact of three adjacent marinas, with their associated footbridges, car parks, boats and related works has a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
6.6 Should Members consider that the development is appropriate in the Green Belt, I consider that the introduction of an elevated footbridge directly opposite 35 Church Road at a distance of 30m from the rear boundary may lead to some overlooking. However, 30m is more than the 21m normally permitted between habitable rooms and I consider that a refusal based solely on loss of privacy could not be justified. Furthermore, I also consider that the manoeuvring of boats into and out of the marina basin would not lead to such increased levels of noise and disturbance to occupiers of properties along Church Road to warrant refusal.
6.7 The ecological assessment submitted with the proposal states the site is improved grassland but not high-grade agricultural land. There is no evidence of water violets on site and mitigation measures have been proposed for the water vole habitat. The County Geologist, Wildlife Trust and Environment Agency are satisfied that their concerns regarding the previous application have now been addressed with regard to the ecological impact of the proposal. However, no reference has been made in the applicant’s ecological assessment, of the Rufford Railway Hollows BHS, part of which is only 45m from the site.
6.8 The site is designated as an Area of Landscape History Importance of Regional Importance. The applicant’s landscape report does not address issues of visual impact and setting in the wider context. I consider that the proposed development would result in a major change to the landscape, mainly due to the cumulative impact of further development of a similar nature to the two marina developments (one existing and one under construction). This impact would be most obvious from the public footpath that lies along the River Douglas to the north. In effect, the proposed marina would create a new built edge to the village in this location and take away from the setting of the woodlands of Rufford Old Hall. The proposed development would not, in my opinion, respect the landscape history of the site and its surroundings. The resultant change in landscape would also cumulatively impact upon the setting of the Conservation Area as a large extent of the eastern boundary of the Conservation Area would contain marina activities and reflect a built form rather than preserve or enhance the natural landscape setting of the area on the adjacent Grade 1 Listed Rufford Old Hall, its Historic Garden and Parkland.
7. DEPARTURE APPLICATION
7.1 In my view, this proposal is a departure from the Development Plan in that it involves a development normally inappropriate in the Green Belt. It is also my view that the proposed development would significantly prejudice the implementation of the Development Plan’s policies and proposals. The application should therefore be referred to the Secretary of State if the Council is minded to approve it.
8. RECOMMENDATION
8.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-
1. The proposed development conflicts with Policies GB.1 and GB.2 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan, Policy DS.2 of the Re- Deposit Draft Replacement West Lancashire Local Plan, Policy 4 of the adopted Lancashire Structure Plan, Policy 6 of the Deposit Draft Joint Lancashire Structure Plan and advice given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts in that it is not considered to be essential and is therefore inappropriate development. The development does not maintain the openness of the land and harms the visual amenity of the Green Belt, therefore conflicting with the purposes of including land in it and no very special circumstances have been demonstrated to outweigh the presumption against inappropriate development. 2. The proposed development would be detrimental to the Area of Landscape History Importance of Regional Importance and the setting of the Rufford Conservation Area and the Rufford Old Hall Historic Park and Garden in that by virtue of the bridge, vast area of engineering works to create the marina, moored boats, access road and car parking, it would result in a loss of the historic landscape character, visually harming the setting of the adjacent historic hall, park and garden and cumulatively impacting upon the setting of the adjacent conservation area. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies LN.2, LN.14 and CA.3 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policies GD.1, EN.4 and EN.7 of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement West Lancashire Local Plan.
AV/JRH/SK
No. 9 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0459 LOCATION DUTTONS FARM, MOSS BRIDGE LANE, LATHOM PROPOSAL HISTORICAL VISITORS’ CENTRE INCORPORATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF IRON AGE ROUNDHOUSES, SITING OF TWO PORTAKABINS FOR USE AS CLASSROOMS/ WC AND PROVISION OF CAR PARK APPLICANT MR & MRS BEESELY WARD NEWBURGH PARISH LATHOM 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 11.8.2005
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 None
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (04.05.05) – A scheme for the conveyance of foul drainage to a private treatment plant shall be submitted.
2.2 TRANSCO (05.05.05) – The information has been forwarded to another department as the adjacent pipeline is part of National Transmission System. A method statement and details of finished floor levels should be submitted. (31.05.05) – The pipeline has a notified building proximity distance of 95 metres which is the minimum recommended distance.
2.3 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (06.05.05) – No objections or observations to make.
2.4 UNITED UTILITIES (06.5.05) – No objection.
2.5 HEALTH & SAFETY EXECUTIVE (06.05.05) – Insufficient information has been provided with the application to allow full consideration of it. (19.05.05) - Do not advise against the granting the planning permission.
2.6 BRITISH WATERWAYS (19.05.05) – No comments.
2.7 L.C.C. ARCHAEOLOGIST (23.05.05) – Work recently undertaken by Liverpool Museum Field Archaeology Unit encountered the remains of a number of well preserved Iron Age and Romano-British features and finds. This work demonstrated that there is the potential for further as yet unknown archaeological deposits that may merit preservation in situ. Lancashire Archaeology Service’s opinion is that the current application contains insufficient information on which to make a reasoned and informed decision on the likely impact of the proposed development. Further information regarding the nature and extent of any surviving archaeological deposits that may lie within the proposed area of development through further evaluation prior to any decision being made. The determination of this application should be deferred until such time as that work has been completed. This is in accordance with PPG16 paragraph 21 and West Lancashire Local Plan AR.3 2.8 CONSERVATION AREA ADVISORY PANEL (26.05.05) – Generally supportive of the idea however they felt further information is required on the business plan for the venture. The applicant should also be encouraged to look at using existing buildings on site to house activities.
2.9 COUNTY SURVEYOR (HIGHWAYS) (12.08.05) – It is important to receive further information regarding visitor numbers and expected means of transport. Only then can a full assessment be made with regard to any proposed means to improve the access to the site, i.e. passing places etc. In its current form the application should be resisted.
3.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
3.1 LATHOM PARISH COUNCIL (17.05.05) – No objection. The Parish Council support the proposal. Only concerns relate to precedent of Green Belt development and the suitability of portakabins for classrooms. These portakabins could have a detrimental impact upon the open countryside and attractive views of the site. Access would have to be from Course Lane as buses could not approach from Hollowford Lane over the bridge on Moss Bridge Lane. Also numbers of visitors would have to be controlled to avoid any disturbance to neighbours. All work should also be surveyed.
(13.07.05) – No objection, comments as above. Furthermore they feel that there are alternative temporary buildings which may be more appropriate to the setting.
4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 I have received one letter of objection. The main points of objection are as follows:
• Possibility of road traffic accidents due to the nature of the road, i.e. a single track road with bends and a weak canal bridge. • It is often the case that fishermen park their cars on the Lane which makes the Lane more hazardous.
4.2 I have received one letter, which is in support of the proposal.
5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION
5.1 A report submitted with the application detailing the proposal states that the idea for the visitor centre came about following archaeological finds on the farm which have established that Duttons Farm was a site for Iron Age settlements like roundhouses. Excavation work was undertaken in 1998 by Lathom and District Archaeological Society and the Field Archaeology Section of Liverpool Museum. Over the past 6 years the University have been active at Duttons Farm and have established that on the farmland there were Iron Age roundhouses. Further field walking has also established that in the field to the south of the farm there was Iron Age occupation.
5.2 The visitors centre would be aimed at students and school children with it being tailored to the national curriculum. It has also been stated that any groups or societies can visit the centre but all visits would be on an appointment only basis. Visitors to the centre would be shown the Iron Age dwellings with details of the construction being explained. Other features detailed during a visit would include learning about the general way of life for people at this time and why the Celts went when Roman’s arrived. Guided walks would be provided down the Canal and along the River Tawd to an area where houses were found. Along this route various woodcarvings and pictures would be erected. Themed visits would also be offered, for example warrior training, crafts and farming.
5.3 The number of employees for the visitors centre would depend on how successful the venture proves. In the main this would be teachers, history students, office staff, ground care etc.
5.4 In terms of marketing it is anticipated that the building of the roundhouses will create an initial burst of interest and this would be used to focus a mail shot to schools and colleges. A website for the project would be created.
5.5 Whilst no funding has been secured for this venture, the applicants anticipate that funding could be aided by grants from various sources and government departments based on agricultural diversification, tourism and education. Once the visitors centre has been established it is anticipated that the costs of operating the site would be covered by the income generated by the visitors centre.
6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 The application site comprises a farmhouse which is situated within an existing group of both traditional and more modern farm buildings. The site operates as a working farm extending to 14 hectares. The site is within Green Belt. The proposal is to site two portakabins and erect 6 roundhouses to provide a historical visitors centre. Car parking would be within the site to an area of existing hardstanding.
6.2 The roundhouses would be sited in the central part of the field to the south of the existing farmhouse and associated farm buildings, two of which have planning permission for conversion to residential use. A pathway extending approximately 140 metres into the field would give access to the round houses. They would be constructed of hazel or willow wattle around larger stakes with the walls being plastered with daub. The roofs would consist of timber rafters of either straw or reeds. There would be 2 of 11 metre diameter, 2 of 9 metres and 2 of 8 metres. Also within this area of the site there would be 2 granary stores measuring 2.75 by 2.75 metres. The whole area upon which the houses would be sited covers approximately 1 hectare. This section of the site would be enclosed by a woven fence on an embankment.
6.3 The portakabins would be sited adjacent to the car parking area which is to be located adjacent to existing farmbuildings at the entrance into the site. They would measure approximately 9.8 metres by 4.2 metres standing approximately 3 metres in height. These would be utilised initially as toilets and a meeting room. It is anticipated at this stage that once the centre becomes established, the portakabins would be removed and replaced with themed structures on the site.
6.4 The main issues relating to this application are the impact upon the Green Belt, neighbouring properties and the highway in terms of traffic generation and safety. 6.5 Policy GB.1 of the adopted local plan states that planning permission will not be granted except in very special circumstances for the erection of new buildings in the Green Belt. Assessing the current proposal and additional information submitted I have concerns with regard to the appropriateness of the development. Whilst it is clear that the site is important in archaeological terms I do not consider that this alone can justify a departure from this policy.
6.6 Furthermore, when considered with the additional information submitted regarding the proposed business, I have concerns regarding the sustainability of the project. A clear and precise business plan has been requested but has not been submitted at this stage. In addition to this no details have been submitted with regard to the full extent of the archaeological remains on the site.
6.7 The comments from the County Council Archaeology Unit reinforce this concern with previous work demonstrating that there is a potential for further as yet unknown archaeological deposits which may merit preservation in situ. Given this I consider it would be inappropriate to grant permission prior to the completion of a full programme of archaeological work.
6.8 Moss Bridge Lane is a single track with limited passing facilities from both the north and the south. The proposal includes the provision of a parking area and classroom facilities which implies more than the casual visitor would be visiting the site. Indeed within the application it has been stated that the centre will be aimed at schools and colleges but would also be open to other societies etc on an appointment basis. As no numbers have been submitted with regard to expected visitors, frequency or means of transport a full assessment cannot be made with regard to this aspect of the scheme. A full traffic impact assessment has been requested but has not been submitted. The details submitted do show the car parking area proposed, but no indicative layout has been submitted. In addition no details of any improvements to the access to the site e.g. passing places have been submitted.
6.9 There are 4 residential properties within the immediate vicinity of the site. Two of these properties boundaries adjoin onto the application site. As no details of the number of anticipated visitors to the centre has been submitted it cannot be demonstrated that there would be no detrimental impact upon the amenity of any of these neighbouring properties as a result of increased noise resulting from additional traffic movements, visitors and overall activities undertaken on the site. Furthermore, the extant planning permission, if implemented, for the conversion of the two existing barns to residential use, could result in a loss of amenity to occupiers of these properties. This current proposal does not demonstrate that there would be no loss of amenity to occupiers given the additional traffic movement, the close proximity of the barns to the proposed car park and general visitors activity.
6.10 Overall I consider that additional information is required to fully assess the proposal. However the agent has stated that the applicant wishes the application to be determined in its current form. Therefore I have no alternative but to recommend the application for refusal as it fails to comply with Policy GB.1 and AR.3 of the adopted local plan. Furthermore I consider that there is insufficient information to fully assess all aspects of the proposal with regard to the impact upon the possible archaeological findings on the site, neighbouring properties and users of the highway.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development conflicts with Policy GB.1 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan, Policy DS2 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan, Policy 6 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan, and advice given in Planning Policy Guidance Note. 2 Green Belts in that it is not considered to be essential and is therefore inappropriate development. The development does not maintain the openness of the land and harms the visual amenity of the Green Belt, therefore conflicting with the purposes of including land in it and no very special circumstances have been demonstrated to outweigh the presumption against inappropriate development
2. The proposed development conflicts with Policy T.2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy SC6 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan in that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not prejudice road safety or the convenient movement of all highway users.
3. Insufficient information has been submitted to enable a full assessment of the archaeological impact of the development on the site. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy AR.3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy EN6 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan.
4. The proposed development conflicts with Policy LE.1 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy DE.15 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan in that insufficient information has been submitted to enable a full assessment of the impact on the amenity of the adjacent residential properties and the area as a whole.
GI/JRH/PH
No. 10 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0475 LOCATION DUTTONS FARM, MOSS BRIDGE LANE, LATHOM PROPOSAL CONVERSION OF BARN TO DWELLING AND ERECTION OF DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE APPLICANT MR & MRS BEESELY WARD NEWBURGH PARISH LATHOM 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 17.6.2005
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 APPROVED (27.01.04) – Conversion of two barns into two dwellings and the erection of two detached double garages. 2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 TRANSCO (27.04.05) – No pipeline would be directly affected.
2.2 UNITED UTILITIES (29.04.05) – No objection.
2.3 HEALTH & SAFETY EXECUTIVE (29.04.05) – Advise contacting the pipeline operator
2.4 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (04.05.05) – No objection subject to a condition attached relating to foul drainage.
2.5 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (05.05.05) – Recommend a contaminated land site investigation be undertaken.
2.6 ENGLISH NATURE (09.05.05) – Conditions should be attached to ensure full adherence with the recommendations made within the bat report.
2.7 L.C.C. ARCHAEOLOGIST (23.05.05) – A record should be made of the building prior to any works commencing.
3.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
3.1 LATHOM PARISH COUNCIL (17.05.05) – No objection. The Parish Council does question the removal of the existing barn for a double garage if it is considered to be an important element in a group of buildings. All work should be subject to an archaeological survey.
4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 None
5.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
5.1 The application relates to a barn set within a group of both traditional and more modern farm buildings. The barn subject of this application is a single- storey brick building which was granted permission for conversion into a dwelling as part of planning approval ref. 8/2003/1448. Works have commenced on the implementation of this permission, however no work has been undertaken which would compromise the work proposed by this current proposal.
5.2 This current application is a revision to the approved scheme. The applicant proposes to create a property that would resemble the original farmhouse which stood on the site some years ago. This involves removing the vast majority of the existing roof structure, extending up in part to create a first floor, inserting additional openings along with altering all those existing to the barn in terms of size and design.
5.3 The proposal also involves the erection of a detached double garage which would be sited to the northern front side of the barn some 8 metres from the barn. The curtilage to the newly created property would be to the front and rear of the site with a cobbled set driveway leading to the property and the detached garage. New screen planting is proposed to the boundaries of the site. 5.4 In terms of Policy DE.1, Residential Development, and the current housing moratorium, these are not relevant due to the extant planning permission to convert the barn to residential use.
5.5 The applicant has stated that this current proposal and the proposal detailed in another report on your agenda for the creation of a historical visitors centre would be implemented in conjunction with each other, i.e. one would not be implemented should the other not receive planning permission.
5.6 Historically the first addition maps of 1845 show that a farmhouse did exist on the site. Clearly however, the farmhouse no longer exists and the materials from that building were used to construct the barn currently on the site.
5.7 In terms of heritage / conservation reasons I do not consider that the need to re-create a house long since demolished can be justified. Therefore the proposal should be assessed purely against Green Belt policies. Assessing the proposal against policy GB.7 in the adopted plan, it clearly fails to comply with several criteria, most notably ii, iii and ix.
5.8 The proposed conversion involves significant rebuilding, demolition and extensions which are required to meet the intended use. Whilst it has been demonstrated within the structural report submitted, that the barn is structurally stable, the whole of the roof structure would need to be removed to construct the first floor element and new pitched roofs to the single storey aspects. Policy GB.7 states that it is important for historic and architectural reasons that as much as possible of the original structure is retained as a substantially rebuilt barn retains no architectural or historic interest. As stated previously this proposal to re-create a house long since demolished cannot be justified for historical reasons and therefore the existing barn should be retained and converted under a scheme that retains as much of the original structure as possible.
5.9 Policy GB.7 states that proposals for conversion should when completed look like a converted rural building. This proposal would resemble a new building by reason of the size, design and positioning of the extensions and alterations proposed. The Policy also requires that buildings should be large enough to be converted for the proposed use without the need for alterations or extensions which would damage its existing form or character and that any acceptable extensions or alterations should be architecturally consistent with the existing building. As this proposal involves altering all the existing openings either in terms of size or positioning, and the addition of several new openings, it fails to comply with this criterion.
5.10 Finally I consider that the proposed alterations, extensions and the resulting volume increase to the building would have a materially greater impact than the present barn on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt.
5.11 With regard to the proposed detached double garage, this is in the same location and of the same dimensions as that previously approved under 8/2003/1448. The impact of this proposed building would be offset against the removal of a large agricultural shed, which is currently to the centre of the farmyard. I raise no objection to the erection of this detached building.
5.12 This proposal is not just to convert an existing barn to residential accommodation and is in fact to convert and extend a barn to create a dwelling which was once on the site. I do not consider that any very special circumstances can or have been demonstrated to go against the councils normal presumption to refuse proposal such as this, which do not comply with all the criterion of policy GB.7.
6.0 DEPARTURE APPLICATION
6.1 The proposal is technically a departure from the Development Plan in the Green Belt, but it is not considered that it would significantly prejudice the implementation of the Development Plan’s policies and proposals and therefore need not be referred to
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons :-
1. The proposed development conflicts with Policy GB.7 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan relating to the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt, and advice given in Planning Policy Guidance Note.2 Green Belts, in that it would be architecturally inconsistent with the existing building in terms of size and design and would damage the building’s existing form and character.
2. The proposed development conflicts with Policy GB.7 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan relating to the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt, and advice given in Planning Policy Guidance Note.2 Green Belts, in that it includes extensions and alterations to the building which by reason of its size and design would result in a detrimental impact on the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt.
GI/JRH
No. 11 APPLICATION No. 8/04/1512 LOCATION CARR HALL FARM, CARR LANE, LATHOM PROPOSAL RETENTION OF USE OF BUILDING AS AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING AND WROUGHT IRON WORKSHOP. CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL SHED TO JOINERY MANUFACTURING WORKSHOP AND GENERAL STORAGE/WAREHOUSING APPLICANT R.F. & M. MERCER WARD NEWBURGH PARISH LATHOM 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 11.8.05
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 None.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 UNITED UTILITIES (29.11.04) – no objection.
2.2 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2.12.04) – no objection.
2.3 LOCAL ACCESS GROUP (8.12.04) – accessibility requirements.
2.4 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (31.1.05) – recommend conditions relating to noise emissions, hours of operation and outside working.
2.5 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS (11.4.05 and 4.7.05) – require visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m, 15m radii at junction, minimum 7.3m width for first 20m and at least one passing place.
3.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
3.1 LATHOM P.C. (7.12.04, 10.2.05 and 13.7.05) – no objection to retention of use of building as agricultural engineering workshop but have real objections to other aspects of the application:
1. The wrought iron workshop is an industrial, not agricultural function. 2. Change of use of ‘agricultural shed’ (existing large Dutch Barn) to joinery manufacturing workshop and general storage/warehousing would change the site into an industrial function – not appropriate in the heart of a Green Belt area. We are also concerned that recent vehicle operators licence application has been made for a plant hire operation form this site/building and large plant hire equipment has appeared on site. 3. Safety/access for users of the public footpath which runs through the site would be affected if this site/building became, in fact, a large industrial unit. 4. The site is in our opinion unsuitable for what essentially would become an industrial use and the proposed amendments to ‘access improvements’ and ‘passing places’ tends to support our original concerns. 5. Carr Lane is a dangerous, busy road and irrespective of the amended sight lines and visibility splays we still believe the Carr Lane access/egress is a potential safety hazard, particularly for large vehicles. 6. The impact on neighbouring properties and the proposed reduction of the hedge height is also considered detrimental to residents, wildlife and the local landscape in general.
4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 An objection has been received from the owners of the adjacent property on the following grounds:
• object to use of part of barn as wrought iron workshop as this takes the barn out of the realms of agriculture; • object to joiners workshop as this also takes an agricultural barn in a strictly Green Belt area into an industrial unit. Can not be considered as farm diversification as applicant is no longer a farmer; • the plant hire business is having an industrial impact on the farming aspect of the surrounding area; • object to large amounts of plant and machinery being stored and operated from the barn and will set a precedent for any other agricultural buildings in the Green Belt to become mini industrial estates; • since proposal has been amended to include enlarged access and passing places we expect a significant increase in volume of traffic using the shared driveway and public footpath and object on grounds of noise, safety and impact on the Green Belt.
5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT
5.1 The applicant’s agent has submitted the following information:
My client has been the owner of Carr Hall Farm since 1965, during which time they have built up a highly successful engineering business servicing the local farming community in the design, manufacture and repair of specialist agricultural machinery. This has taken place in the smaller of the two buildings located within the confines of the old farmyard. The building was erected in 1979 and sub-divided as it stands today in 1984 to assist my clients son in setting up his own wrought iron business, which has recently been taken on by someone else, still occupying the same premises, and is a successful business in its own right, employing two people.
The larger of the two buildings has also been subdivided in order to create a storage facility for a plant hire company (please note that the plant hire company do not operate their business from these premises). The other portion of the building is currently being let to a joinery manufacturing business currently employing three people.
Steve Riley Plant Hire Ltd is the company who wish to use the storage facility at Carr Hall Farm. They are not as such, despite the company name, a plant hire business of the likes of Hartley Hire etc. but are in fact a civil engineering business carrying out contract works on building and civil engineering projects. Steve Riley Plan Hire Ltd also own the joinery business operating from the end of the large barn at Carr Hall Farm. This is where the vehicle operator’s license application comes in to play. The joinery business have to by law apply for this license in order to operate vehicles to and from the premises, in this case to transport the joinery fabrications to and from the workshop. The main fabrications are timber shutters for civil engineering projects. It is this reason why Steve Rile Plant hire is the applicants on the license application.
With regard to the use of the storage space, Steve Riley Plant Hire Ltd have vehicles such as mini diggers and dumper trucks (believe 5 No in total), on various civil engineering contracts they are working on throughout the region, and these plant are moved from site to site as required. The means of transferring the plant from site to site is by 7.5 tonne wagon with ramps. It is this wagon which is to be stored at the proposed storage space along with occasionally their plant equipment when the sites they are working on are shut down for any lengthy period of time such as Christmas and new year. Therefore this would entail the wagon moving to and from site on average once every six weeks.
My client has kept records of vehicular movement form Carr Lane into the track and over the course of 5 working days there was 4 No incidents of vehicular movement by the operators of the Joinery workshop. The vehicular movements concerned with the other businesses in the two existing workshops are as they have been for over the last 20 years, on average 4 times per day. This then makes a net gain of vehicular traffic of at the most 1 per day.
When the shed was used for the storage of vehicles and general storage for agricultural purposes, there would have been, in a subjective estimate, at least the same movements, if not more than exist today. Indeed, when a school existed on the site up until around 1975, there would certainly have been more traffic using the track with the County Highways at the time modifying the access in question.
We would like to re-iterate the in-frequency of movement of the vehicles that would be stored in the shed, in that one vehicle may be brought into storage every six weeks, as to have more than that number not out on a building site would prove too uneconomical for the Steve Riley Plant Hire Ltd.
The change of use of the agricultural shed to general storage has no impact in terms of increased volume of traffic on a daily basis.
The change of use of the agricultural shed to joinery manufacturing workshop has as minimal impact in terms of increased volume of traffic on a daily basis as is possible.
The access requirements seem to be disproportionate with the actual situation and that for what my client wishes to achieve for the buildings (now that they are no longer required for agricultural use) is actually of benefit to the local community by providing lettable space for a small local business.
The improvements to the access and the track itself, whilst they may be physically possible are we feel not necessitated by the current situation, and again my client would like to reiterate that they do not want anything bigger in terms of business use than what exists and would be happy to accept any conditions related to limiting the type and size of business.
6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 The application relates to a group of clad/timber buildings which were formerly used for agricultural purposes. The buildings are sited approximately 150 metres west of Carr Lane, accessed via a single-width unmade track which is also a public footpath. The applicant’s house lies to the north of the buildings, and also adjacent is another residential property (The Bungalow), which is not in the ownership of the applicant.
6.2 Permission is sought for the continuation of the existing uses of the buildings. The westerly building is divided between a wrought iron workshop (112m2), agricultural engineering workshop (274m2) and office (20m2). The easterly building is divided between a joinery workshop (320m2) and storage space for a plant hire company (193m2), with an additional covered store area to be used for the applicants domestic storage.
6.3 The site lies within the Green Belt. Policy GB.7 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan relates to the re-use of rural buildings in the Green Belt and states that the proposed use should not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt, and should not include any building extension or associated uses of land which might conflict with the openness of the Green Belt or its purpose. Policy T.2 states that development should not prejudice road safety or the convenient movement of all highway users. Policy DE6 of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan states that the re-use of existing buildings for small-scale industrial (B1, B2 and B8) and non-retail commercial development will be permitted in the Green Belt subject to several criteria including that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the local environment, local or visual amenity or highway safety.
6.4 The various uses do not require any extension or other physical alteration of the buildings. No extension to the existing hardstanding area surrounding the buildings is required, and no external working or storage will take place on this land. The site is partially screened by a row of silver birch and cherry trees to the west but additional screen planting will help to screen the site from the east and south. On this basis I am satisfied that no unacceptable loss of openness or visual amenity of the Green Belt will result from the continuation of these uses.
6.5 The impact of the various uses on the amenity of the occupiers of the adjacent residential property (The Bungalow) must also be considered, particularly in terms of any noise or other disturbance. On the basis that no outdoor working or storage will take place, I am satisfied that noise emissions from the buildings and the hours of working cam be controlled by appropriate conditions. In my opinion the level of activity and number of vehicle movements anticipated by the applicant will not result in any unacceptable disturbance to the adjacent occupiers.
6.6 The plans have been amended to meet the requirements of the County Highways Engineer, and it is now proposed to widen the access for the first 20 metres and provide a passing place further west. Visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m will be provided, requiring the hedgerow to be maintained at 1 metre in height. On this basis I am satisfied that no loss of highway safety will result to users of the track including pedestrians using the public footpath.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. SCU01 Restrict to the uses specified on the approved plans/Classes B1, B2 or B8. 2. SCC05 Times of operation (between the hours of 8.00 a.m and 6.00 p.m.). 3. SCC01 No outside storage, (add “No work shall take place outside the buildings at anytime). 4. Noise from operations conducted on the site shall not exceed the background level by more than 5dBA when measured at the boundary of any residential property. 5. Within 3 months of the date of this permission, the access improvements indicated on the improved plan including the widening of the access and the provision of a passing place shall be completed in full. 6. SCL04 Submit/implement landscaping (Amend as follows: “Within a period of 3 months, ………..within a period of 9 months from the date of this permission, the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out”.). 7. SCH04 Access sightlines (2.4m/Carr Lane/120m/Carr Lane). 8. SCP01 Amended Plans:- Location Plan received 21.6.05; Existing and Proposed Site Plans received 16.6.05.
Reasons
1. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy GB.7) 2. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy GB.7) 3. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy GB.7) 4. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy GB.7) 5. RCH01 Road safety 6. RCL01 Assimilate development (Policy GB.7) 7. RCH05 Visibility 8. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt (Policy GB.7)
Reason for Approval
1. SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policy GB.7 Re-use of Rural Buildings in the Green Belt.
AT/JRH/SK ------
No. 12 APPLICATION No. 8/2005/0304 LOCATION CHURCHFIELDS PLAYING FIELDS, COUNTY ROAD, ORMSKIRK PROPOSAL CONSTRUCTION OF MODEL BOAT LAKE; RE- POSITION FOOTBALL PITCH; PROVISION OF FOOTPATHS; PICNIC AREAS AND LANDSCAPING APPLICANT ORMSKIRK AND WEST LANCS MODEL BOAT CLUB WARD KNOWSLEY PARISH N/A 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 04.05.05.
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 None
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 TRANSCO (31.3.05) – Do not object to the proposal.
2.2 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (12.4.05) – Such a facility potentially has a noise impact on the nearby residents due to the noise of boats and people in such close proximity to the houses. However, the area is currently a public path and there is a football pitch that generates noise from people playing and watching, invariably shouting. Notes that the noise climate of the area is dominated by road traffic noise from County Road that would mask the majority of boat noise and noise from people’s voices. Considers that, with certain restrictions, the proposal would not cause any more disturbance than the existing land use. Suggests certain planning conditions attached to planning permission.
2.3 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (13.4.05) – Expresses concern at several aspects of the proposal. These being:-
1. The vehicular access to the car park is shown adjacent to the pedestrian crossing. This is totally unacceptable.
2. The football pitch 3m high screen is not adequate to prevent balls entering the highway.
3. The proposal is inside the buffer zone for the Cottage Lane, Ormskirk Highway Scheme.
2.4 CONSERVATION AREA ADVISORY PANEL (28.4.05) – Any object/structure/tree planting which affects the view of the Church would have an adverse effect on the setting of the Conservation Area. Important to remain ‘openness’ of the site.
2.5 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (6.5.05) – Agency has no objection in principle to the proposed development subject to certain conditions placed upon any planning permission granted.
2.6 SPORT ENGLAND (9.5.05) – Are satisfied that the proposal is consistent with specific circumstance (exception) to their policy in that the playing field or playing fields which would be lost as a result of the development would be replaced by a playing field or playing fields of an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent or greater quantity in a suitable location and subject to equivalent or better management arrangements, prior to the commencement of development. Suggests planning conditions be placed upon any planning permission granted. Sport England do not wish to raise an objection to this application.
2.7 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (HEALTH AND SAFETY) (6.6.05) – No objections subject to certain conditions being met on the Health and Safety viewpoint.
3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 8 letters of objection and 7 letters of support received. The grounds of objection being:-
1. Football has been played on this site for many years and is part of the history and culture of Ormskirk. This football pitch is also the best in the area and the only one in Ormskirk/Burscough area that can be relied upon to be in a reasonable condition.
2. There is already a large suitable site for this purpose within the park.
3. As the brook in that part of the field proposed for the new lake already floods in heavy rain what it does not need is more water.
4. Surely ratepayers money could be better used to the advantage of the wider community not just a few score of enthusiasts – a lot of whom do not live in Ormskirk.
5. Where are all the cars going to park when the facility is used?
6. How are you going to retain this as a “boating lake” and discourage ducks and other wildlife from using it.
7. This proposal may have something to do with any future decisions on the Ormskirk By-Pass.
8. Would cause a nuisance to nearby residents.
9. Is a model boating lake needed for such a small number of local people?
10. Detrimental visual impact of safety fence.
11. Safety issues on nearby residents of footballs being kicked.
12. Lake will attract ducks. Wildlife is one of the reasons that OWLS cannot use the existing lake in Coronation Park.
13. It will encourage youths to congregate late at night and cause noise disturbance to neighbours.
14. The proposals will lead to traffic congestion onto Southport Road to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety.
15. Who would be responsible for the maintenance of the areas. If Council staff do it, it will be an additional cost to ratepayers.
16. Close to good facilities in Southport. Council could be left with a “white elephant”.
The grounds of support being:-
1. It will enhance the status of Ormskirk and West Lancashire for tourism, employment and prove to be an asset for disabled wheelchair-bound people.
2. Will provide enthusiasts with a much-needed facility.
3. Will improve the appearance of Coronation Park.
4.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
4.1 This application seeks planning permission for the construction of a model boating lake, re-positioning of football pitch, provision of footpaths, picnic areas, landscaping and works to the river bank to create additional floodplain capacity.
4.2. The model boating lake will cover an area of 3620m², be 110m in length with a width of 46m and have a depth of approximately 1m. It will be located to the northern corner of the existing Churchfields Playing Fields, off County Road, Ormskirk. The works to the river bank involve grading it backwards to create wet ledges and marginal habitats to form an additional 1,850m³ floodplain capacity lost through the boating lake’s construction to form an additional 1,850m³ floodplain capacity lost through the boating lake’s construction. That part of the river bank that is affected is to the west of the existing cemetery of the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul and existing pond. To facilitate the construction of the lake the existing football pitch will be rotated through 90°, so that one goal will be backing onto Rosecroft Close, with the other goal backing onto County Road and will be positioned adjacent to the existing footpath which links County Road with Churchfields. A 4m high weldmesh fence will be erected behind both goals backing onto both County Road and Rosecroft Close.
4.3 The main issues for consideration within the determination of this application are the principle of the development in Planning Policy terms, the visual effects of the proposals upon the appearance of both the immediate area and adjoining Conservation Area, the effects of the development upon the drainage and ecology of the area and upon nearby residential amenity and the highway implications of the proposals.
4.4 The proposed site is located to the north of Coronation Park, which is allocated as recreational space under Policy LN.10 and as green space under Policy LE.11 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan. Under the Re- Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan, the Park is allocated under Policy SC.1 and as green space under Policy EN8.
4.5 Policy LE.11 states that the loss of amenity open space will not be permitted unless the loss forms part of a larger proposal for the development of sports, recreational, open space or leisure facilities serving the needs of the community. Policy SC1 of the Re-Deposit Replacement Local Plan states that “outdoor sport and recreational facilities will be permitted in green spaces and on protected land or in the Green Belt provided that they comply with all relevant policies”. Both Policy LN.10 of the adopted Plan and Policy EN8 of the Replacement Plan states that development may be permitted where it will provide substantial environmental gain to the visual, ecological or recreational functions of the green space. Policies LN.10 and EN8 make clear that any proposal that would restrict access to a publicly accessible green space would be unacceptable. It is considered that as the proposals form part of a wider ecological, recreational and visual enhancement proposals of the park then the proposal in this location are acceptable in principle. In effect, there will be no loss of open or green space.
4.6 As part of the proposals involve landscape enhancement of part of the playing fields, then the visual appearance of the area will be improved. A condition is included in my recommendation to ensure that a landscaping scheme is submitted and approved by the Council before construction works commence on the boating lake. Any approved landscaping scheme will ensure that any important views of the Church and the Conservation Area are not obstructed by any proposed planting. The 4m high fences will have some detrimental impact upon the area. However, given that these are to be located only behind both goals and are only a minor element of the scheme and are considered not to have a significant detrimental impact upon views of the Church or views into the adjoining Conservation Area.
4.7 With regard to the drainage of the site, the applicant’s agent has drawn up the scheme in consultation with the Environment Agency and includes an additional area of floodplain capacity created to offset that lost through the Lake’s construction by grading the river bank backwards to overcome any potential flooding problems. The Environment Agency as part of their consultation response have requested certain planning conditions to again overcome any flooding issues.
4.8 The Executive Manager Community Services has indicated that a model boating lake has a potential noise impact on the nearby residents due to noise of boats and people in such close proximity to the houses. However, the area is currently a public park incorporating a football pitch that generates noise from people playing, watching and invariably shouting. It is noted that the noise climate of the area is also dominated by road traffic noise from County Road, that would mask the majority of boat noise from people’s voices. Given this, both the Executive Manager Community Services and myself consider that with certain restrictions (no petrol driven model boats, number of model boat competitions restricted, no floodlighting, no voice amplification systems etc), the proposals would not cause any more disturbance than the existing land uses.
4.9 Turning to highway issues and in particular the comments of the County Surveyor, I would advise Members that there is no proposed vehicular access to the site but the applicant does propose some off street parking within the car park of the adjacent Comrades Club. I believe there is an agreement between The Owls and the Comrades Club for this to be provided. Given that some car parking provision is to be provided, that the uses on the site are not likely to be large generators of traffic, the close proximity of the site to town centre car parks and that no provision for existing users of the playing fields exist, I consider that there will not be a requirement for the applicant to provide any additional on-site parking over that to be provided at the Comrades Club. 5.0 RECOMMENDATION
5.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
1. SCT02 Standard time condition (Full Planning Permission) 2. Petrol driven model boats shall not be permitted on the model boating lake at any times. 3. The number of model boat competition days shall be restricted to 10 days per year. 4. There shall be no floodlighting on the site. 5. No voice amplification system, PA system or loudspeakers shall be used at the site at any time. 6. Prior to the commencement of any development works on the site, the developer shall undertake an ecological survey of the land to establish whether or not any protected water voles are present. Where species or other habitat are found to be present, a mitigation report shall be prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. No development or site clearance shall take place until the Local Planning Authority has agreed the mitigation measures in writing and these measures shall then be implemented in accordance with that agreement. 7. SCL11 Submit landscaping implement in 9 months. 8. Suitable and sufficient signage, warning of the depth and dangers of the water of the model boating lake shall be erected at the site and a sufficient number of life-saving buoyancy devices shall be supplied at strategic locations adjacent to the proposed lake and available at all times. These requirements shall be in place when the use of the lake becomes first operative and retained at all times thereafter. 9. The construction of the model boating lake and the re-positioning of the adjacent football pitch shall be undertaken concurrently with each other and the use of the model boating lake shall not commence until the football pitch has been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. A programme of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before construction starts. The agreed works shall be implemented thereafter. 10. Prior to filling of the lake hereby approved, the overflow outfall shall be provided and available at all times thereafter. 11. Before the model boating lake hereby approved becomes first operative, the works to the proposed floodplain as detailed upon the approved plan shall have been completed. 12. Before construction works begin on both the model boating lake and re-positioning of the football pitch, details of the construction vehicle routes across the park and onto County Road shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be implemented thereafter. 13. Before construction works begin on both the model boating lake and re-positioning of the football pitch, details of protective fencing to be provided around the existing trees and hedges along County Road whilst construction works are undertaken, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be implemented thereafter. 14. Before first use of the re-positioned football pitch hereby approved, two 4m high weldmesh fences shall be erected behind both goals. Details of the design, position and colour of the fences shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before they are first erected. 15. Before the use of the model boating lake commences the picnic areas and footpaths shall have been provided and available for use at all times thereafter. 16. Before the model boating lake hereby approved becomes first operative, the access bridge to the Comrades Club car park shall be erected and available for use at all times thereafter.
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard time reason (Full Planning Permission) 2. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area from excessive noise intrusion and so comply with Policy P.1 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 3. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area from excessive noise intrusion and so comply with Policy P.1 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 4. To avoid direct glare, unnecessary light spillage and sky glow and nuisance to residents and road users, thereafter complying with Policy P.5 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 5. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area from excessive noise intrusion and so ensure compliance with Policy P.1 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 6. To protect the interests of any protected water voles which may be present on the site and so comply with Policy LN.13 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 7. RCL01 Assimilate development, Policy LN.10. 8. In the interest of public safety. 9. To ensure the continued use of the existing sports facility and so comply with Policy LE.11 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 10. To prevent flooding of the area and so comply with the provisions of Policy P7 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan. 11. To prevent flooding of the area and so comply with the provisions of Policy P7 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan. 12. To prevent damage to the Park and so ensure continued use of the playing fields to comply with Policy LE.11 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 13. RCL02 Protect Trees. 14. The protect the safety of nearby residents and users of the highway and so comply with the provisions of Policy T.2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 15. To ensure that these facilities are provided and so comply with Policy LN.10 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 16. To ensure that pedestrian access is provided from the car park to the site and so comply with Policy T.2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.
NOTES
1. GEN05 Access for disabled persons 2. GEN12 Planning permission only 3. GEN14 Right of Way. Footpath No. 80 abuts the site. 4. GEN22 Environment Agency response.
Reason for Approval
SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policies LE.11 - Protection of Amenity Open Space, Sporting and Recreational Facilities LN.10 - Protection of Major Corridors and Green Spaces LN.13 - Protected Species P.1 - Pollution - General
AW/JRH/HA
------
No. 13 APPLICATION No. 8/2005/0759 LOCATION LAND REAR OF 5-11 CARR MOSS LANE, HALSALL PROPOSAL ERECTION OF ONE DETACHED BUNGALOW APPLICANT MUIR GROUP HOUSING ASSOCIATION WARD HALSALL PARISH HALSALL 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 18.08.05.
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 8/2004/1639 REFUSED. 9.2.05. Erection of two bungalows.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 UNITED UTILITIES (15.7.05) – No objections.
2.2 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (18.7.05) – The site may be contaminated by virtue of its proximity to an existing garage used for motor vehicle repairs. Notes that this use has spread over onto the edge of the development site to some extent. Therefore asks that a condition be placed upon any planning permission granted asking for a contaminated land investigation be carried out.
2.3 EXECUTIVE MANAGER HOUSING SERVICES (23.8.05) – Supports the scheme. There is a need for this type of housing in Halsall.
3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 None received.
4.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 HALSALL PARISH COUNCIL (19.7.05) – No comment to make.
5.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
5.1 This application is for the erection of a three bedroomed bungalow for affordable needs. It will measure approximately 14.3m x 8.8m x 5.4m and will be constructed with brickwalls and a tiled roof.
5.2 The site comprises a piece of vacant land situated to the rear of Nos. 5-11 Carr Moss Lane, Halsall. It lies within the settlement of Halsall and is located in close proximity to the school, bus route and other services.
5.3 An application (08/04/1639) for two bungalows for local needs was refused on 9th February 2005 as the layout of the site did not provide for on-site vehicle turning facilities and the design of the existing access road to the site did not allow two vehicles to pass one another thereby resulting in the likelihood of vehicles reversing onto Carr Moss Lane, to the detriment of both highway and pedestrian safety.
5.4 The main issues to be considered within the determination of this planning application are the principle of the development in planning policy terms, the effects of the development upon both highway and pedestrian safety together with the effects upon nearby residential amenity.
5.5 In principle, in planning policy terms, the site lies within the settlement of Halsall and is covered by Policy H.7 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy DS1.3 of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan. Both Policies allow affordable housing provided that it meets an identified local need. The recent housing needs update identified a general need for affordable housing within the rural areas of West Lancashire and this has been confirmed by the Council’s Housing Strategy Section. I am satisfied therefore as affordable housing is acceptable in this area then in principle, in planning policy terms, the development is acceptable.
5.6 In highway terms, I am now satisfied that adequate provision has been provided within the site for vehicles to manoeuvre and leave the site in a forward gear. However, the access track to the site off Carr Moss Lane still does not allow for two vehicles to pass one another. However, given that the scale of the proposed development has been reduced and that the area is currently used for the parking of cars I consider that as a result of the development, there will be a reduction of vehicles using this area, that the development will not have a significant detrimental impact upon both highway and pedestrian safety. I therefore raise no highway objection.
5.7 The site is well screened on all boundaries by both close boarded timber fencing and hedging, so that there will be no significant increased loss of amenity to the adjoining residents.
5.8 It is normal practice to require applicants for affordable housing to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to ensure that the dwellings do cater for local needs and remain as such in perpetuity. This is not being required in this case as the land is owned by the Council and such safeguards can be included in the terms and conditions of the sale of the land.
6.0 RECOMMENDATION
6.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
1. SCT02 Standard time condition (Full Planning Permission) 2. SCP01 Amended Plans Refs 1456-03A and 1456-02G received by LPA on 26th August 2005. 3. SCB14 Details of Materials 4. SCD03 No commencement until drainage approved by relevant body 5. SCB08 Restrict P.D. extensions, outbuildings 6. SCL04 Submit landscaping/implement in 9 months 7. Both the parking and turning area shall be provided and laid out as detailed on the approved plan No. 1456 - 20G before occupation of the dwelling and retained as such thereafter. Both areas shall be available for such uses thereafter.
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard time reason (Full Planning Permission) 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt – Policy H.4 3. RCB03 External appearance – Policy H.4 4. RCD03 Ensure site drained 5. RCB01 Restricted site 6. RCL01 Assimilate development 7. To allow for the effective use of both the parking and turning areas and to ensure the development complies with the provisions of Policies T.2, T.13 and T.14 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.
Notes
1. GEN02 Samples on site 2. GEN05 Access for disabled persons 3. GEN08 Building regulations 4. GEN11 Access to buildings for the Fire Brigade 5. GEN12 Planning permission only 6. GEN17 Amended plans 7. GEN33 Approval of materials 8 GEN34 New road names
Reason for Approval
SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policies H.7 Affordable Housing in Rural Settlements H.4 Design criteria for residential development U.3 Wastewater and sewage disposal T.2 Road traffic and development
AW/JRH/HA ------
No.14 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0516 LOCATION ORMSKIRK DISTRICT GENERAL HOSPITAL, WIGAN ROAD, ORMSKIRK PROPOSAL OUTLINE – ERECTION OF THREE 3-STOREY BUILDINGS COMPRISING 8 NO. 2 BED FLATS AND 13 NO. 4 BED MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY FLATS TO PROVIDE DOCTORS RESIDENCE AND “ON CALL” ACCOMMODATION AND PROVISION OF CAR PARKING (INCLUDING DETAILS OF SITING). APPLICANT SOUTHPORT AND ORMSKIRK NHS TRUST WARD DERBY PARISH N/A 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 9.9.05
1. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 8/03/0037 GRANTED. 31.5.05. Outline – development of site for employment (Class B1) and residential purposes (including details of means of access). 8/03/1208 GRANTED. 15.1.04. ADJACENT SITE – 17, 19 and 29 Ruff Lane, Ormskirk. Change of use of 3 health care buildings to 3 residential dwellings. 8/04/1577 GRANTED. 24.1.05. ADJACENT SITE – 19 Ruff Lane, Ormskirk. Lantern to main roof; conservatory at rear; replacement side porch; replace existing flat roofs with pitched roofs to side and rear. Three chimney stocks and rooflights to main roof.
2. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 Executive Manager Community Services (11.5.05) – require Environmental Management Plan to control dust and noise emissions, hours of working and material on road. Recommend building measures to minimise effects of landfill gas migration and standard disclaimer.
2.2 United Utilities (13.5.05) – no objection.
2.3 Environment Agency (18.5.05) – recommend scheme for provision of surface water regulation system.
3. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 None.
4. OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
4.1 The application relates to a site of 0.45ha within the south-western part of the hospital site. The land is currently occupied by two 3-storey blocks and one single-storey block of accommodation containing a total of 15 units of accommodation for medical staff. To the south of the site are 2 former health care buildings with access onto Ruff Lane, both of which have planning permission for conversion to residential dwellings. The site itself lies within a larger site with outline planning permission for employment (B1) and residential development (ref; 8/03/0037).
4.2 Permission is sought for the replacement of the existing buildings with three linked 3-storey buildings containing a total of 8 no. 2-bed single-occupancy flats and 13 no. 4-bed multi-occupancy flats to provide residential and “on- call” doctors accommodation. The proposal also includes the provision of a car park with space for 42 cars, accessed off Dicconson Way through the hospital complex. The remaining land will be landscaped, including a pond at the front and shared garden areas at the rear. The application is in outline including details of siting.
4.3 The site lies within the main settlement of Ormskirk as defined by the West Lancashire Local Plan. As Members are aware the Council currently has a moratorium on new residential development, however there are special circumstances which apply in this case to justify overriding the presumption of refusal, namely the application site forms part of a larger application which has an outstanding outline planning permission for residential development. In addition the proposed development is replacing existing residential accommodation and the continued provision of on-site accommodation for medical staff is an essential requirement for the continued operation of the Hospital. Other relevant policies for consideration of the application include Policy C.1 of the West Lancashire Local Plan which states that proposals for community use will be permitted subject to several criteria, and Policy H.4 relating to Design Criteria for Residential Development.
4.4 The site and the surrounding land contains a large number of trees. The proposed development will necessitate the removal of several trees, the majority of which are on the edge of the site and are relatively small or declining in health. Within the centre of the site, 3 out of a group of 4 trees will be retained including a mature Horse Chestnut and a middle aged Birch. The indicative landscaping scheme indicates the planting of 25 replacement trees, and the protection of existing trees during the demolition and construction phases. On this basis I am satisfied that no overall loss of visual amenity will result and that the replacement planting will adequately mitigate for the trees to be removed.
4.5 The application is in outline form with all matters except siting reserved for subsequent approval. I am satisfied that the site is of sufficient size to satisfactorily accommodate the proposed level of development without being detrimental to the character of the area or the amenity of two adjacent properties, formerly in Hospital use but which now have planning permission for conversion to residential use.
4.6 The proposed provision of parking for 42 cars complies with the Lancashire Parking Standard of a maximum of 2 spaces per dwelling. I am satisfied that no significant increase in traffic accessing the hospital site will result, given that residential accommodation already exists on this part of site and the proposed development will house medical staff employed at the hospital.
5. RECOMMENDATION
5.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. SCT01 Standard time (outline) 2. SCD01 Submit Reserved Matters (delete “siting”) 3. SCP01 Amended plans: Location Plan and Site Plan received 22.4.05; Plans Refs 130/33/L(P)0.12 and L(P)0.13 received 27.6.05; Arboricultural Assessment received 15.7.05. 4. SCL10 Tree Protection 5. SCD03 Drainage approved by relevant body 6. Prior to work commencing on site, an Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, setting out measures to be undertaken during construction to control dust and noise emissions, hours of working and any other areas of potential environmental impact. The measures contained in the report shall be fully implements during the construction phase. 7. SCB26 Submit levels
Reasons
1. RCT01 Standard time (outline) 2. RCD01 Outline approval 3. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt (Policy C.1) 4. RCL02 Protect trees 5. RCd03 Ensure site drained 6. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy C.1) 7. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy C.1)
Reason for Approval
SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policy C.1 – Proposals for Community Use Policy H.4 – Design Criteria for Residential Development
Notes
1. GEN06 Landfill Gas mitigation measures 2. GEN07 Landfill Gas Disclaimer (50 metres) 3. GEN08 Building Regulations 4. GEN11 Access to buildings for the Fire Brigade 5. GEN12 Planning permission only. 6. GEN17 Amended plans 7. GEN35 Demolition
AT/JRH/SK
No. 15 APPLICATION No. 8/04/1644 LOCATION WATER TOWER, TOWER HILL, ORMSKIRK PROPOSAL CONVERSION INTO 7 APARTMENTS AND PROVISION OF CAR PARKING AREA. CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESS ROAD AND NEW VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS APPLICANT DERBY DEVELOPMENTS WARD DERBY PARISH N/A 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 14.2.05
No. 16 APPLICATION No. 8/04/1645 LOCATION WATER TOWER, TOWER HILL, ORMSKIRK PROPOSAL LISTED BUILDING CONSENT – CONVERSION INTO 7 APARTMENTS APPLICANT DERBY DEVELOPMENTS WARD DERBY PARISH N/A 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 14.2.05
1. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 8/02/1376 WITHDRAWN. 21.5.03. Conversion of former water tower into 6 apartments with associated car parking, new access and landscaping. 8/02/1377 WITHDRAWN. 21.5.03. Listed Building Consent – Conversion of former water tower into 6 apartments. 8/01/1221 WITHDRAWN. 15.4.02. Conversion of former water tower into 7 apartments; provision of 14 car parking spaces and new access; landscaping. 8/01/1222 WITHDRAWN. 15.4.02. Listed Building Consent. Conversion of former water tower into 7 apartments; provision of 14 car parking spaces and new access; landscaping. 8/92/0601 REFUSAL. 24.2.93. LBC. Conversion into 6 no. two bedroom flats including detached 6 car garage block. 8/92/0600 REFUSAL. 24.2.93. Conversion into 6 no. two bedroom flats including detached 6 car garage block. 8/88/1358 REFUSAL. 24.4.89. Conversion to offices. 8/88/0971 APPROVAL. Use of water tower as one dwelling with detached garage.
2. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (6.1.05) – Recommend landfill gas disclaimer.
2.2 PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING (11.1.05) – No comments.
2.3 ENGLISH HERITAGE (12.1.05, 23.3.05 & 5.5.05) – No objection subject to an independent verification of the costs and valuations to demonstrate that the 11% profit is realistic and achievable and the amount of development is the minimum necessary to secure preservation of listed building.
2.4 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ARCHAEOLOGY (13.1.05) – Recommend building recording/analysis.
2.5 UNITED UTILITIES (13.1.05) – No objections.
2.6 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (19.1.05) – No objection subject to conditions requiring contamination study and surface water regulation system.
2.7 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING (21.1.05) – Contrary to Policy 12 of Structure Plan (Pre-Adoption Composition Edition) – would exacerbate over-supply of housing.
2.8 CONSERVATION AREAS ADVISORY PANEL (20.1.05) – Loss of fabric and impact on open character of the building. Suggest development be restricted to area above support pillars.
2.9 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS (2.2.05) :- - Existing walls and hedges would need reducing in height to achieve 2.4m x 90m visibility splays. - Maximum gradient of access should be 1 in 25 and access shall remain ungated. - Require conditions ensuring construction of access and surfacing of car park. AMENDED PLANS (26.4.05) – No objection.
3. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 24 neighbouring properties, on the following grounds:
• Water Tower is part of heritage of Ormskirk and should be preserved; loss of intricate internal arch structure; • not in keeping with area, especially addition of replacement tank – looks much higher than original and does not enhance appearance of tower; • loss of privacy/overlooking of windows and gardens, especially by addition of extra storeys; • increased congestion on already busy roads with dangerous blind spots, gradient and school crossing; • additional traffic caused by hospital and Ormskirk School; • insufficient parking would lead to parking on Tower Hill; double yellow lines would result in increased traffic speeds; need for full traffic survey; • proposed access would result in loss of large section of hedge and may be dangerous in winter due to slope; • contrary to Development Plan; • may lead to pressure for further development on allotments; • Tower should be retained at existing height, converted to single dwelling or given to North-West Heritage Trust to be restored with grant funding; Tower should be re-classified as a registered monument; • loss of property values; • Bats or birds may be using the Tower; • site is not a youth trouble spot to extent claimed by applicant – any trouble can be dealt with; • flats will be bought by commuters who will not contribute to local economy; • use of parking area will cause noise disturbance – car park should be at rear and left-turn only; • disturbance during construction; • potential for damage to the adjacent property caused by proposed retaining wall and planting; • fail to understand economic justification; value of flats is inconsistent and costs are not justified; • WLDC have stated they will only support conversion to one dwelling.
4. OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
4.1 The former Water Tower is a Grade II* Listed Building and is included on English Heritage’s Register of Buildings at Risk. The prominent Water Tower is located on the east side of Tower Hill, Ormskirk, and is reputedly the oldest remaining Water Tower in the country. Residential properties lie immediately to the south and on the west side of Tower Hill; the Council’s allotments and recreation ground lie to the north and east of the site.
4.2 Planning permission was granted for conversion to a single dwelling in 1988 although this scheme was never implemented. Planning permission and Listed Building Consent were subsequently refused in 1993 for conversion into 6 flats with a detached garage block. The reasons for refusal were based on overlooking, highway safety issues and overdevelopment of the site. Several subsequent applications for planning permission and Listed Building Consent to convert the tower into 6/7 apartments were withdrawn in April 2002 and May 2003.
4.3 The current scheme involves the addition of a 6 metre high stainless steel “tank” on top of the existing tower, resulting in an overall height of approximately 23 metres. The resulting structure would then be converted to form a total of 7 two bed apartments. The proposal also involves the formation of a new access road off Tower Hill and the provision of 11 car parking spaces on the land in front of the tower. A small area of garden/amenity space would be provided to the side/rear of the tower.
4.4 The majority of the site lies within the main settlement area of Ormskirk as defined by the West Lancashire Local Plan, with the exception of the 7 metre wide strip of land at the rear of the tower which is designated as Green Space and Amenity Open Space. Given the need to provide a setting for the listed building by leaving space at the rear, I consider the small loss of designated open space to be acceptable.
4.5 The principle of residential development does not fall within one of the exceptions set out in Policy DE1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan, and the provision of 7 units would exacerbate the current housing oversupply in the District. However, the scheme would secure the future of an important listed building which is currently regarded as being “at risk”. In my opinion the proposal should be treated as an exception to Policy DE1, provided that it has been demonstrated that the scheme represents the minimum level of work necessary in order to make the scheme viable.
4.6 The scheme must also meet the relevant criteria of Policy H.4 of the adopted Local Plan, including that the design of the buildings should relate well to adjacent buildings and the area generally, reasonable levels of privacy and amenity are maintained for occupiers of neighbouring property and the proposed property, and that safe and convenient access can be provide. The detailed scheme for the conversion of this Grade II* Listed Building should comply with Policies LB.1, LB.3 and LB.7 of the Local Plan.
4.7 The applicant has submitted a financial appraisal in relation to the proposed scheme, which indicates a profit level of £142,241 or 11% on cost. Appraisals have also been carried out in relation to two alternative schemes. Firstly, the conversion of the existing tower to 5 apartments without the addition of the “tank”, which indicates a loss of £279,015 or 25% on cost. Secondly, the conversion of the top chamber of the tower plus the new “tank” to form a total of 4 apartments, which indicates a loss of £221,730 or 21% on cost. The applicants have concluded that the proposed scheme represents the only viable option to secure the future of the listed building.
4.8 The Council has commissioned an independent assessment of the financial appraisals by an external property consultancy. The consultants have looked at the proposed development returns and construction costs of the three alternative forms of development. They have concluded that the developers appraisals are a fair and reasonable reflection of the viability of the three schemes and consequently concur with the developers assertions that the scheme to convert the tower into 7 apartments is the only viable option of the three alternative schemes. They do add that should construction costs escalate, without a commensurate increase in sales prices, the existing modest profit would be eroded and possibly extinguished. However, this I would suggest is applicable to any development project of this scale and nature. Given the findings of the Consultants, I accept that the proposed development is the only viable option available to secure the future restoration and re-use of the water tower.
4.9 Turning to the site planning and design issues, the original water tank was of metal construction, approximately 4 metres deep, with a pitched, slate covered roof, and was removed roughly 10 years ago. The proposed steel, flat-roofed structure with glazed panels will not therefore exactly replicate the previous tank and will be visually prominent as a result of its height. The other proposed alterations to the tower including the addition of glazed panels and balconies on the external elevations, the removal of substantial sections of the 9 masonry piers and the addition of intermediate floors will have a significant impact on the form and structure of the building. However, in my opinion the resulting building would retain its unique character and would continue to make a significant contribution to the built heritage of Ormskirk.
4.10 In order to protect the privacy of adjacent occupiers, the proposed south elevation of the tower does not include any windows to habitable rooms. Light will be allowed in to this elevation through translucent panels which will not allow any view out. At my request, the proposed balconies on the west elevation have been recessed slightly between the masonry piers, in order to prevent any overlooking of the gardens to the south. All other neighbouring properties are sited at least 35 metres from the tower. Despite the unusual height of the proposed building on 7 storeys, in my opinion this distance is sufficient to prevent any unacceptable loss of privacy of adjacent occupiers.
4.11 Due to its height and bulk, the existing tower already has a considerable impact when viewed from the gardens of the properties to the south, in particular that of 9 Tower Hill. This impact will be significantly increased as a result of the addition of the 6 metre high “tank”. However, in my opinion this would not result in any unacceptable overbearing impact or loss of amenity of the adjacent residents, and no direct overshadowing of the gardens will result. I am also satisfied that no unacceptable disturbance will be caused as a result of the use of the proposed car park. The alternative siting at the rear of the tower would result in the loss of a greater area of open space.
4.12 The formation of the proposed access onto Tower Hill will require the removal of an 8 metre section of the existing stone retaining wall and hawthorn hedgerow on the site frontage although this will be reconstructed on either side of the new access drive. The remainder of the wall and hedge on the site frontage will be retained. The access drive has been amended at my request and does not now exceed a gradient of 1 in 25. The required visibility from the access of 2.4m x 90m cannot quite be achieved due to the alignment of Tower Hill. However, bearing in mind the level of use of the proposed access and the relatively slow speed of traffic using this stretch of road, the County Highways Engineer is satisfied that no loss of highway safety will result. The provision of 11 car parking spaces including one disabled space complies with County Parking Standards.
4.13 Lancashire County Council has, at the request of this Council, carried out two bi-directional traffic speed/count surveys in Tower Hill, Ormskirk. These were carried out during two separate periods, one in school term time and one outside of term time. The results of the survey show that there are no significant traffic speeding issues at the survey location point in Tower Hill and also there is no significant difference in the speed of vehicles during the two periods. The total volume of traffic on weekdays is, as you would expect, greater in term time than outside of it but the percentage increase is not deemed significant. Weekend traffic volumes are very similar during both periods. The County Council’s Chief Traffic and Development Engineer has not raised any concerns in connection with this application with respect to either volume of traffic or speed of vehicles in Tower Hill.
4.14 The detailed construction of the proposed scheme involves the use of slimline, partially concealed aluminium window and door frames with inward openers, and painted timber cills. Subject to a full specification of materials I am satisfied that the detailed scheme is appropriate in terms of its impact on the character of the listed building.
4.15 To conclude, I am satisfied that the proposed scheme represents a viable way forward for securing the future of a valuable Grade II* Listed Building which is currently at risk. The proposed development should therefore in my opinion be treated as an exception to Policy DE1 of the Replacement Local Plan. I am satisfied that the proposed scheme complies with Policies H.4, LB.1, LB.3 and LB.7 of the adopted Local Plan.
4.16 As the building is a Grade II* listed building, it is necessary for the Council to refer the application to the Secretary of State prior to a decision being issued.
5. RECOMMENDATION
5.1 That the decision to grant planning permission and Listed Building Consent be delegated to the Executive Manager Planning/Development Services in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to the Secretary of State raising no objection
5.2 That planning permission reference 8/04/1644 be subject to the following conditions:
1. SCT02 Standard time. 2. SCP01 Amended plans:- Existing Site Plan, Existing Plans, Elevations and Sections all received 6.12.04; Proposed 4th and 5th floor plans, 6th floor and roof plan, existing and proposed sections all received 6.12.04; proposed site plan, visibility splays and sections (Dwg. Nos. 301A, 302A, 303A and 304) all received 3.3.05; detail drawings (Dwg Nos. 500, 501, 502, 503 and 504) received 23.3.05; proposed elevations, proposed ground to first floor plans, proposed 2nd to 3rd floor plans all received 23.3.05. 3. SCB24 In accordance with structural survey. 4. SCM05 Record of building. 5. SCD03 No commencement until drainage approved. 6. SCB22 Species protection schemes for bats and barn owls. 7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a desk study has been undertaken and agreed by the Local Planning Authority to investigate and produce an assessment of the risk of the potential for on-site contamination. If the desk study identifies potential contamination a detailed site investigation should be carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. If remediation measures are necessary they will be implemented in accordance with the assessment and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 8. SCL11 Submit landscaping/implement in 9 months. 9. SCL10 Tree protection. 10. SCH04 Access sightlines. Insert 2.4 metres, Tower Hill, 70 metres, Tower Hill. 11. The new access road between the site and Tower Hill shall be constructed in accordance with the Lancashire County Council Specification for construction of estate roads to at least base course level before any other development takes place within the site. 12. SCH14 Mark out car park. 13. All windows on the south elevation shall be fitted with translucent panels as indicated on the approved plans and shall be retained as such at all times thereafter.
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard time. 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt – Policy H.4. 3. LBR02 Listed Building. 4. RCM01 Archaeological site. 5. RCD03 Ensure site drained. 6. RCB12 Safeguard protected species. 7. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution to water resources or to human health and that the development therefore complies with Policy P.4 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 8. RCL01 Assimilate development. 9. RCL02 Protect trees. 10. RCH05 Visibility 11. RCH01 Road safety. 12. RCH02 Parking clear of highway. 13. RCB04 Privacy – Policy H.4.
Reason for Approval
1. SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policy H.4 – Design Criteria for Residential Development Policy LB.3 – Repair, Improvement or Alteration of Listed Buildings.
Notes
1. GEN07 Landfill Gas Disclaimer (350 metres). 2. GEN08 Building Regulations. 3. GEN11 Access to buildings for the Fire Brigade. 4. GEN12 Planning permission only. 5. GEN17 Amended plans. 6. GEN27 Vehicular Crossing 7. GEN31 Structural survey.
5.3 That Listed Building Consent reference 8/04/1645 be subject to the following conditions:
1. LBC01 Works within five years. 2. SCP01 Amended plans. Existing Site Plan, Existing Plans, Elevations and Sections all received 6.12.04; Proposed 4th and 5th floor plans, 6th floor and roof plan, existing and proposed sections all received 6.12.04; proposed site plan, visibility splays and sections (Dwg. Nos. 301A, 302A, 303A and 304) all received 3.3.05; detail drawings (Dwg Nos. 500, 501, 502, 503 and 504) received 23.3.05; proposed elevations, proposed ground to first floor plans, proposed 2nd to 3rd floor plans all received 23.3.05. 3. Prior to the commencement of the development a Schedule of Works including the phasing of works and full details of all internal and external materials to be used in the refurbishment of the listed building shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved Schedule of Works and the specified timescales.
Reasons
1. LBR01 Section 18 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt – Policy LB.3. 3. In the interests of the protection of the listed buildings and to ensure that the development complies with Policy LB.3 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan.
Reason for Approval
1. SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policy LB.3 – Repair, Improvement or Alteration of a Listed Building.
Notes
1. GEN17 Amended plans. 2. GEN29 Listed Building Specifications.
AW/JRH/SK ------
No. 17 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0474 LOCATION LAND AT LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH/PIPPIN STREET, BURSCOUGH PROPOSAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING DIY STORE (INCLUDING GARDEN CENTRE); NON- FOOD RETAIL UNITS; OFFICE BLOCK; 2 RESTAURANTS, CAR SHOWROOM AND WORKSHOP; AMBULANCE STATION; 10 BAY COACH PARK; ASSOCIATED ROADS AND CAR PARKING INCORPORATING NEW ROUNDABOUT, TRAFFIC ISLAND AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING APPLICANT HURLSTON BROOK LIMITED WARD BURSCOUGH WEST PARISH BURSCOUGH 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 13.6.2005
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 8/04/0419 WITHDRAWN. 3.3.05. Retail Park Development comprising 1 DIY Store, 6 non-food retail units, car showroom, 3 fast food outlets, associated roads and car parking, new vehicular pedestrian traffic island and access.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 UNITED UTILITIES (03.05.05) – No objections subject to separate metered supply to each unit. 24 hour capacity water storage should be provided.
2.2 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (9.05.05) & (20.5.05) – Within 350m of former/existing waste disposal site and recommend disclaimer. Also from a noise perspective there is potential for noise from the ambulance station to cause disturbance to the occupiers of the nearby houses and if operated 24 hours a day would cause unacceptable noise disturbance to residents unless substantial acoustic wall or fence is erected. A restriction in delivery times to the rest of the units is recommended as well as general noise level restrictions.
2.3 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING (10.5.05) – Proposed development conforms to strategic planning policy provided West Lancashire District Council is satisfied that there are not any sequentially preferable sites to accommodate disaggregated retail elements of the proposed development. The site is now allocated for mixed-use development of employment and non- food bulky goods retail and should also be considered against Policy 16 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan which seeks to protect the vitality and viability of existing town centres. Policy 16 also sets out a hierarchy of centres and states that retail development will reflect the position of the town centre in the hierarchy and be consistent with the scale and function of the centre. Burscough and Ormskirk are both level 3 centres where the focus is on serving more local catchments and dispersed rural populations.
The Director of Planning accepts the analysis in the submitted retail assessment that there is a quantitative and qualitive need for improvements to the non-food retail offer in Burscough. The negative impact of the proposed development on the town centres of Burscough and Ormskirk could be reduced if there is scope to locate elements of the proposed development in sequentially preferable locations. The negative effects of trade diversion from Burscough and Ormskirk needs to be weighed against the potential claw back of leaked expenditure to centres outside West Lancashire.
The proposed office development is considered to be acceptable. The Submitted Travel Plan should offer more serious proposals for good accessibility by public transport and should contribute towards improved public transport measures. Parking levels are acceptable although spaces for cycle and motorcycle policy should be provided.
2.4 HIGHWAYS AGENCY (24.6.05) – No objections although the Highways Agency is no longer the highway authority for the A59 and responsibility for its operation now rests with Lancashire County Council.
2.5 EXECUTIVE MANAGER REGENERATION AND PROPERTY (27.6.05) – It is essential that any development on this site does not undermine the viability of Burscough Town Centre, which will be the subject of a major regeneration project over the next 3 years. Fully support the development of office development. The non-food retail element would not, on its own, significantly impact on current job levels in Ormskirk and Burscough and would claw back retail spend lost to Kew or Aintree. However, the creation of two retail parks in the District could adversely affect vitality and viability of town centres. Any resulting jobs lost would have to be balanced against the creation of major employment opportunities and any resulting floorspace in the town centre would be occupied by more specialist retail uses, which would increase their attractiveness. Welcomes provision of coach parking. Query level of proposed jobs to be created, advises on level of 266 full-time equivalent. Implementation of the scheme would help achieve the aims of NW Development Agency’s Regional Economic Strategy.
2.6 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (14.7.05) – No objection in principle subject to conditions regarding surface water regulation system, landfill gas site investigation and assessment, details of foul water treatment, oil interceptors.
2.7 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS (12.8.05) – No objection subject to conditions regarding surfacing of car park, wheel wash facilities, highway works to be constructed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed and Business Travel Plan to be agreed.
3.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
3.1 BURSCOUGH PARISH COUNCIL (3.05.05) – Fully supports the proposal and would remind the Council of the need for a spur of the proposed Ormskirk bypass to serve the industrial estate and the need for a roundabout at Pippin Street.
3.2 SCARISBRICK PARISH COUNCIL (7.6.05) – Concerned about an increase in the volume of traffic on what is already an extremely busy road.
4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 A 64 signatory petition has been submitted in objection to the proposal on grounds of environmental issues, traffic congestion, air pollution, house devaluation and noise.
4.2 23 individual letters of objection have been received. The following issues have been raised :
Traffic Safety
• area already suffers from major traffic problems and the A59 is already overloaded, proposal will increase traffic further • surrounding roads cannot cope • increased noise from traffic 24 hours a day • Ormskirk by-pass should be seriously looked at prior to such a development being considered • traffic chaos whilst new roundabout being built • speed limit on A59 should be reduced • already takes 10 minutes to exit Lordsgate Lane, proposals do not help alleviate this problem
Retailing
• unnecessary as do not have to travel more than 5 miles to be able to shop at similar shops • better alternative sites available in Ormskirk • if not all units occupied, vandalism will set-in and the area will appear run down • does not address needs of community as already retail parks in area • detrimental effect on existing businesses
Layout and Impact on Surrounding Area
• office units 31ft high, as high as fir trees, which would kill the trees and make a lot of people ill • eyesore • light pollution • increased noise • gangs of youths would congregate • increased litter in area • visually imposing • large illuminated signs across from residential property • buildings too tall • ambulance station too close to residential properties causing loss of visual amenity, privacy and noise • loss of trees • loss of privacy • increased smell from restaurants • area needs community projects such as parks and areas to walk in • overshadowing of office block • already empty units in area, why build more offices and factories • another soulless, ugly concrete development in what is essentially a rural area • loss of quality of life • increased health risk, asthma due to pollution
4.3 One letter of support has been received from a local childrens’ nursery, subject to provision of a pelican crossing along the A59.
5.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT
5.1 The applicant has submitted numerous documents to support their case (Retail Assessment, Environmental Statement, Supporting Planning Statement, Traffic Assessment and Tree Implication Study). These documents are available on the file for inspection but in essence, they can be summarised as follows.
5.2 The retail park will create significant job opportunities, totalling 333 to 411 full- time equivalent. A smaller non-food retail development would not be financially viable due to the substantial costs of developing the site. The developer’s expected profit on the site would be approximately 9.8% which is below developer’s usual aspirations. Other forms of land use would not generate the value necessary to support the development cost.
5.3 The proposed development would allow significant highway improvements to be made (such as reducing congestion, reduce potential for traffic accidents) which would in turn bring major benefits to the local economy and alleviate much of the congestion that currently affects the main access to Burscough Industrial Estate. There are several prospective occupiers of the retail park which supports the view that these retailers are seeking to serve local needs and that substantial expenditure can be ‘clawed back’ from retail parks that lie outside West Lancashire.
5.4 The site is allocated for the proposed use in the adopted Local Plan. The authority has clearly identified a need for such a development. There is substantial leakage of expenditure in relation to bulky goods outside the District. The existing centres of Burscough and Ormskirk are unable to provide the retail offer that the proposed development would. The impact on existing retailers would be minimal. Clear need for the size of development proposed which is backed by the extent of retail interest shown in the site. In order to attract national companies the scheme needs to have a certain ‘critical mass’ with complimentary users locating next to each other. A fully occupied retail park would bring in excess of £½ million rating revenue per annum to West Lancashire which would represent a significant increase in income. Would promote a substantial increase in economic activity within Burscough assisting its regeneration. Would retain approximately £12 million of trade in Burscough and Ormskirk that is currently spent elsewhere which can only have a positive effect on the local economy. Reduction in car journey lengths to other retail parks, therefore, having material benefits for the environment and sustainability objectives. Would substantially improve a long disused development site at the entrance into a key employment area enhancing both the visual amenity and the physical amenity of the area. It will define the edge of the built up area and provide a high quality landscaped buffer between the industrial estate and the green belt.
5.5 The submitted Environmental Statement demonstrates that there would be no visual impact on open countryside or Green Belt as a result of the proposal. Buildings will be to a large extent, screened by the Beaufort Hotel and associated landscaping and existing industrial units. The Pippin Street boundary will be heavily landscaped thus helping to break up the built frontage and screen other buildings. The A59 is a main trunk road and, therefore, the retail park is on a main route to and from work, thus helping to further reduce vehicle journeys thus limiting the impact on the Green Belt. Surrounding residential areas will also benefit from highway improvements.
5.6 The submitted retail assessment states that the allocation of the site for retail purposes under Policy S14 of the Adopted WLLP forms a presumption in its favour, having regard to Section 38 of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004. The site is also proposed to be allocated for retail development and other uses in the Local Plan review. It further states that 84% of the residents of Ormskirk/Burscough shop primarily outside the area for their bulky non- food goods requirements, this is the equivalent of £24.2 million. As a result of this deficiency, considerable retail investment is being lost from the District. The specific accommodation demands of specialist retailers are not being met in the area. This leakage of expenditure in combination with the continuing growth in the spending power of the local area provides a compelling demonstration of both qualitative and quantitive need for retail development of the scale and character proposed. There are no other opportunities available to accommodate this demand. The proposal would not harm future vitality and viability of either Burscough or Ormskirk town centres. The proposal complies with the policy provisions of PPG6 and its successor PPS6.
5.7 The Pippin Street site is allocated in the Development Plan and is to be retained in the Review of the Development Plan; a Local Plan Inquiry regarding the Review of the Local Plan is in progress and there is no objection to the Pippin Street allocation. The proposed allocation, therefore, carries significant weight. There is a risk that the approval of retail development on the former Hattersleys engineering works will prejudice retail development at Pippin Street, which is part of the current and emerging development plan strategy. On this basis, it is considered premature to determine the Hattersley planning application in advance of determining the Pippin Street proposal.
5.8 Only 45% of the site area is allocated for retail purposes.
6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 The site is located at the junction of the A59 Liverpool Road South and the B5242 Pippin Street. It is on the north side of Liverpool Road South and bound by Pippin Street to the west, Tollgate Road to the north and houses along Lordsgate Lane and car park of the Bull and Dog Pub to the east. It is approximately 2.2km south west of Burscough town centre and 2.3km north east of Ormskirk town centre.
6.2 The site slopes gently from south to north and covers approximately 4.23 hectares (10.44 acres). It is triangular in shape and predominantly grassland with groups of trees in and on the edge of the site, as well as a mature hawthorn hedge along Liverpool Road and Pippin Street. A hedge also runs east/west within the site which gives the appearance of two fields.
6.3 The site contains the remains of two gun emplacements that date from the Second World War. One is hidden under young trees on the north east part of the site and the other under a group of Willow trees in the western end of the site. It is proposed that these would be removed.
6.4 The surrounding land to the south is predominantly open countryside, however, the A59 contains a mix of buildings and uses in close proximity to the site, i.e. a hotel, a public house and residential housing. Furthermore, Tollgate Road leads to the Burscough Industrial Estate.
6.5 The current application seeks full planning permission for a mixed-use scheme comprising : • 8,183 sq.m. of Class A1 non-food retail floorspace, comprising a 2,323 sq.m. DIY retail warehouse with a 930 sq.m. garden centre and 280 sq.m. service compound and five bulky goods retail units comprising 930 sq.m. each. These units would back onto Tollgate Road. • Two Class A3 units comprising a drive-thru of 268 sq.m. and a restaurant of 295 sq.m. located on either side of the entry to the site close to the corner of the junction of Liverpool Road and Pippin Street. • 1,115 sq.m. vehicle workshop and showroom and ancillary office of 558sq.m. fronting Liverpool Road. • A two-storey Class B1 office block to the east of the site at the rear of properties along Lordsgate Lane. • An ambulance station in the north east corner of the site accessed separately off Tollgate Road. • A ten-bay coach park facility between the retail units and the ambulance station.
6.6 The main access to the site would be from a new large roundabout at the junction of Liverpool Road South and Pippin Street. A service access would be from the existing roundabout at the junction of Pippin Street and Tollgate Road. This service road would run parallel to Tollgate Road. The ambulance station would be separately accessed off Tollgate Road. A total of 427 parking spaces are to be provided, including disabled and parent and child spaces. A covered cycle park would also be provided. A pedestrian link would be provided through the site linking Tollgate Road to Liverpool Road South where a new pedestrian island would be installed.
6.7 As part of the proposal, the hedgerow along Liverpool Road South will be removed and part of the hedgerow along Pippin Street. Trees along the eastern boundary at the rear of properties on Lordsgate Lane and Admiralty Close are subject to a Tree Preservation Order and are proposed to be retained. Some trees adjacent to the existing roundabout off Pippin Street are also proposed to be retained.
6.8 The proposal raises a substantial number of important and complex issues. Any development of this prominent site between Ormskirk and Burscough has to be very carefully assessed. The main issues that have been addressed in order to reach a balanced and carefully considered view are outlined in detail as follows.
6.9 Firstly, Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that when determining a planning application, the decision maker must make their decision in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
6.10 The site is allocated as a non-food retail park in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy S.14 is relevant. This policy specifically states that non- food retail warehousing, fast food restaurant and/or petrol filling station would be permitted, provided a number of detailed criteria are met. The site was originally allocated for retail development because a study undertaken on behalf of the Council in 1993 (the Ormskirk Shopping Study) identified a need for a site of approximately 1.5 hectares to accommodate a DIY retail warehouse. At the time, no suitable site existed within Ormskirk. It was considered that the Burscough Employment Area was centrally located to serve the whole District.
6.11 However, planning policy in respect of retail development and town centres has evolved in recent years, culminating in the recent publication of Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) Planning for Town Centres published in March 2005. It is the advice contained in this document, the findings of an updated retail study carried out by consultants on behalf of the Council (the Ormskirk Retail Study 2003) and a Lancashire Shopping Study 2003-2011, which have led to a change in the allocation of the site in the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan to a mixed-use development site. Policy DE14 A states that a “mixed development of employment and non-food bulky goods retail will be permitted on land at Tollgate Road/Pippin Street. The retail element will only be permitted if :- - it complies with Policy DE10; - it consists entirely of non-food bulky goods and does not take up more than 50% of the site; - there is a clearly defined need; - there is no alternative site in or adjacent to any existing town centre; - a retail impact assessment showed that the development would not harm the vitality and viability of any existing Town Centre; and - it would provide a delivery mechanism for the remainder of the site to be developed for employment uses The Local Plan Inquiry has not yet concluded and 5 objections remain in relation to this policy although only 1 objects to the proposed non-food retail element. However, this policy does reflect the most recent retail advice and should, in my opinion, be given more weight than the adopted Local Plan policy, which is now based on out of date survey information.
6.12 I also consider that Policies 12 and 16 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan are relevant. Policy 12 supports mixed-use development to ensure that large sites are brought forward for sustainable plans of development and to meet a regeneration need. Policy 16 seeks to protect the vitality and viability of existing town centres. In this instance, the relevant Development Plan is the West Lancashire Local Plan and the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan. Other material considerations include PPGs/PPSs, the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan, as well as any directly related community benefits or disbenefits arising from the proposed development.
6.13 The total site area is approximately 4.23 hectares. The area of non-food bulky goods retailing amounts to approximately 1.95 hectares, approximately 1.46 hectares for the office area, ambulance station, food operators and car workshop and car showroom and approximately 0.89 hectares for the remaining area. The area for non-food retail, therefore, the applicants state, comprises 45% of the total area. It does, however, result in only 34% of the remaining area being provided for other uses. This means that the 45% calculation for non-food bulky goods retail has been arrived at by the applicant, by excluding 21% of the site area as “common areas”.
6.14 A number of alternative sites in West Lancashire were investigated by the applicant in order to satisfy the sequential test – required under Policy S.14 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan, Policy DE14A of the Re-Deposited Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan and PPS6. The application site is considered to be out-of-centre - a location which is not in or on the edge of a centre but not necessarily outside the urban area. Edge of centre sites should be preferred over out-of-centre sites. Four sites which could accommodate comparison retail floorspace of a type relevant to meet the identified needs were investigated in Burscough (Martland Mill – redeveloped as food store, and Canal Yard on Liverpool Road North), Ormskirk (land rear Church Street and the former nursery and depot on Park Avenue). All these sites are town centre or edge-of-centre sites, and potentially preferable to out- of-centre sites. These sites were dismissed due to reasons of poor access, buildings more suited to conversions to other uses, no main road frontage, not commercially viable, poor HGV access for servicing. However, the applicants have themselves identified potential occupiers for their own proposed units representing retailing sports goods, pet goods and toys, all of which could be sold from the town centre.
6.15 In addition, the applicant has also assessed three further out-of-centre sites including Hattersleys, Ormskirk, Royal Ordnance Support Unit, Briars Lane, Burscough and Ormskirk Hospital. The applicant states that these sites are also out-of-centre and offer no sequential advantage over the application site. The Council’s retail consultants have assessed the sites that could accommodate the development as a whole or its constituent parts and are satisfied that there are no sites available, viable or suitable to accommodate the proposed development.
6.16 In terms of assessing need, PPS6 advises that Local Planning Authorities should assess the likely future demand for additional retail and leisure floorspace, normally for a period of five years ahead and the catchment area that is used to assess this need should be realistic and well related to the size and function of the proposed development and take account of competing centres. In terms of qualitative need, provision should be made to allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the whole community.
6.17 In 2003 the Council engaged consultants to carry out a Retail Study of Ormskirk and consultants have also been used to carry out a full Retail Assessment of the proposal. In terms of need, it is useful to compare the findings of this study with the floorspace proposed. The study advises that maintaining the market share of Ormskirk would be the best option, however, there is a significant outflow of expenditure, as identified by the shopper survey undertaken as part of the Ormskirk Retail Study. Much of this expenditure goes to places such as the Racecourse Retail Park, Aintree; Robin Park, Wigan and Meols Cop Retail Park, Southport. It has been estimated that 2,394 sq.m. additional non-food bulky goods floorspace would be required to maintain Ormskirk’s market share up until 2009. However, the additional 6000 sq.m. proposed as part of the application could be supported by some “claw back” from this leakage of expenditure to neighbouring retail parks, although given the strength of competing centres, it is doubtful that a significant level of “claw back” could be achieved. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that with a natural and realistic increase in growth rates over the next five years in the bulky goods sector, together with some “claw back”, there is a demonstrable need for an increase in non-food bulky goods floorspace. Indeed, the Ormskirk Retail Study highlighted that in order for Ormskirk to capture the significant growth in comparison good expenditure, it is likely that there will be a need to enhance future retail provision, thereby, ensuring that this growth is not lost to competing centres and Ormskirk’s future market share does not decline.
6.18 It must be noted that as well as satisfying the sequential test it must also be demonstrated that the proposal would not harm the vitality and viability of any nearby town centre. To assess the potential impact of the proposed development, an assessment of trade draw is required. The applicant’s retail consultant indicates that 15% of trade will derive from Ormskirk Town Centre and 10% from Burscough Town Centre and 15% from Skelmersdale. The remaining turnover (60%) will be derived from trade currently lost to competing retail parks. Based on these levels, they identify a trade impact of 3.7% on Ormskirk and 13.6% on Burscough, although unlikely in Burscough given the limited non-food retail offer in this centre, particularly in respect of bulky goods. However, the Council’s Retail Consultant considers that a greater proportion of trade will be drawn from Ormskirk and it is important to note that its retail function is underpinned by a strong DIY and furniture provision and a trade draw of 35% is more likely, giving a potential impact of 8.7% on Ormskirk. However, more recent retail studies have shown retail growth rates are significantly higher in real terms and the realistic impact is more likely to be in the region of 4.8%.
6.19 The Council’s retail consultants conclude that considered on its own, there is sufficient capacity to support the proposed development through an increase in the market share of existing facilities in the Ormskirk-Burscough area for comparison goods. However, they consider that although there are no sequentially preferable sites, the potential impact given the scale of development proposed will still need to be carefully assessed and development should be appropriately conditioned to restrict the range of goods permitted to be sold.
6.20 The applicant argues that the adopted plan allocation is not out-of-date as the 1999 Plan is the development plan although PPS6 should be treated as a material consideration. The Council is proposing to retain a retail allocation at the site in the emerging Local Plan, which is indicative of continued support from the Council for retail development in this location. However, a recent decision with regard to retail development in Middlesborough by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in August 2004 stated that although a site had an allocation within the local plan (August 1999) for retail warehousing, because the McNulty Statement issued in April 2003 stated that all goods can be sold from an established town centre, implementation of the allocation would still have to satisfy the test of need and the sequential approach.
6.21 At this point, I would draw Members’ attention to another application on this agenda for a non-food bulky goods retail development at Liverpool Road South/Pippin Street, Burscough (8/05/0474). The decision on both applications needs to be taken on their individual merits. However, the potential impact of these schemes on existing town centres (notably Ormskirk) will vary depending upon whether only one or both schemes are approved. In coming to decisions on these applications, therefore, it is necessary to consider the “what if scenario” of the other proposal being approved.
6.22 In relation to the Pippin Street Scheme, the retail adviser for the applicants argue that their scheme will divert £2.1 million from Ormskirk Town Centre which, they contend, would be a modest trade impact of 4%. They further contend that this would be outstripped by increases in “bulky goods” retail spending by residents of Ormskirk/Burscough up to 2009. Our own retail adviser, on the other hand, argues that the Pippin Street Scheme will divert some £5.2 million from Ormskirk Town Centre representing a possible trade impact of nearer to 9% than the applicants suggested 4%. However, in taking account of retail growth rates since Ormskirk Retail Study was undertaken, our advisers have indicated that total trade impact will be less and may well be nearer to 4.8%.
6.23 In relation to the “Hattersley” Scheme the development advisers for the applicants argue that their scheme will divert about £1.1 million from Ormskirk Town Centre equating to a trade impact of 1.8% on total retail turnover. They also argue that the impact on Skelmersdale town centre will be about 0.4% with no discernable impact on Burscough. Our own retail advisers suggest that the Hattersley scheme will divert some £4.44 million from Ormskirk own Centre equating to a potential trade impact of 4.2% compared to the applicants suggested 1.8%. For Skelmersdale our advisers suggest a trade impact of 2% compared to the 0.4% suggested by the applicants.
6.24 Clearly, whilst some common views are being expressed by the three sets of retail consultants in relation to a quantative and qualitative need for more non- food bulky goods retailing in the District there are differences on the assessed impacts additional provision will have on our existing centres – particularly Ormskirk. Our advisers state that, taking into account existing commitments and assuming an increase in market share of 20%-22½%, there is a surplus capacity by 2009 of between £10.0 million and £14.0 million of expenditure on comparison goods. Given the Hattersley Centre is estimated to generate £7 million of expenditure and the Pippin Street Scheme £14.9 million of expenditure this means according to our advisers that there is capacity to support one or other scheme but not both on the scale currently proposed. This suggest that if the Pippin Street scheme was similar in scale to the Hattersley scheme both could be accommodated on the basis of their capacity figure. The consultants also advise that by reducing the scale of the Pippin Street scheme it would be more in scale with the area and would better complement the role and function of the nearby centres. The one important caveat to this is that our advisers contend that because both the proposals for comparison goods development are for “bulky goods” they will generally compete with each other and the effect of this will be to reduce the impact on the nearby town centres. In this respect it is seen as important to attach conditions to any permissions granted restricting the goods sold to “bulky Goods” and restricting the sub-division of units to avoid competition with units in Ormskirk and Burscough town centres.
6.25 Policy DE14A refers to the retail element of the site ensuring deliverability of the remainder of the site for employment purposes. The applicant states in their economic assessment, that all the non-food retail units are required in order to attract national companies and have a ‘critical mass’. They are also required to fund the necessary infrastructure/highway improvements. In order to ensure that the proposed office development is implemented, conditions and legal agreement regarding phasing would be necessary. 6.26 Turning to highway matters, Policy T.2 requires that road safety and the convenient movement of all highway users is not prejudiced. The site is along a main road with bus stops in close proximity and buses regularly passing the site, however, the nearest rail station is approximately 1km away. It is unlikely that many people will travel to a non-food bulky goods store by public transport, but staff and visitors should be encouraged to do so and as such, the Travel Plan should offer more serious proposals for good accessibility by public transport and a commuted sum be payable to improve public transport infrastructure in accordance with Policy T.1. The Traffic Assessment demonstrates that all the sections of highway within the local area, except for the section of the A59 immediately to the south of Square Lane, will operate well within capacity in 2021 if the development is constructed. The impact of development generated traffic would increase in the morning peak hour flow to the south of Square Lane by 2%. It is stated, and agreed by LCC, that the site is adjoining existing residential and employment areas and on a main transport corridor and would encourage a high proportion of pass by and linked trips which will not lead to any significant increase in traffic since this traffic would already be on the road network.
6.27 Parking levels of 427 spaces are acceptable although spaces for covered motorcycle parking should be specified and appropriate taxi drop-off/pick-up areas identified within the layout. The Transport Assessment clearly shows that there would be an overall increase in traffic distribution in the area. Lancashire County Council are satisfied that the proposal would have no detrimental affect upon the surrounding highway network in terms of the distribution and level of generated traffic. The proposed roundabout offers the opportunity to improve the junction of the A59 and B5242, to the benefit of highway safety. The proposed service access off an arm of the existing roundabout at Pippin Street/Tollgate Road is considered acceptable, as is the separate ambulance station access off Tollgate Road. A new footway is to be constructed along the northern side of Pippin Street linking it with the existing footway that stops part way along the site frontage.
6.28 The proposed 10 bay coach parking facility provides an opportunity for visiting coach parties to the area to be accommodated, thereby increasing visitors to the area and in turn, economic gains.
6.29 Turning to other matters, the design and layout of the development is of standard retail park design which can be seen across the country. Whilst the area is not within a Conservation Area or overly rural in character, I would have hoped that at this prominent location along a main road and at the gateway to Burscough, a more enlightened design and layout could have been achieved. Nonetheless, the main bulk of the non-food retail units are sited towards the rear with industrial units of Tollgate Road beyond. The frontage to Liverpool Road South and Pippin Street will be landscaped and, where possible, the hedge retained although most will be removed to allow for display of vehicles for sale and in order to accommodate the new roundabout. The design of the retail units includes a mix of brick and cladding and the materials used for the prominent proposed garden centre have been amended to include a 5m high decorative brick enclosure rather than standard mesh fencing. The height of the proposed DIY store is 8m to the eaves and 12m to the ridge. The other non-food retail units are 6m to the eaves and 8.2m to the ridge. The servicing for these units is at the rear facing Tollgate Road. The proposed ambulance station is constructed of brick is 4.5m to the eaves and 6m to the ridge. It comprises of a two-bay building to accommodate 4 ambulances with a lower attached office block. At its closest point it would be 4m from the rear garden boundary of 5 Admiralty Close and 8m from the rear garden boundaries of 25 and 27 Lordsgate Lane. It is assumed that the ambulance station would operate 24 hours a day which could cause noise and disturbance to occupiers of these properties. However, the dwellings themselves are between 11m and 30m from the ambulance station and there is a group of trees along the side garden boundary of 5 & 6 Admiralty Close which will be enhanced with additional planting. Furthermore, I consider that an acoustic fence erected along the eastern boundary of the ambulance station site, would significantly reduce the propensity for noise nuisance. It is also recommended that no sirens are activated until outside the site. This western corner of the site adjacent the existing roundabout at Pippin Street will be partially screened by existing and proposed trees and shrubs.
6.30 The proposed office block has been designed to minimise its impact upon residential amenity, with the height of the building much lower at the rear facing properties on Lordsgate Lane than the front. The building would be 4.2m to the eaves at the rear and 6m at the front, with a ridge height of 9m. This building would be 27m from the dwellings along Lordsgate Lane and 9m from the rear garden boundaries. The ridge is set some 10m in from the rear wall of the office block and, therefore, at its maximum height of 9m would be 37m from the dwellings and 19m from their gardens. The only windows on the rear elevation are at ground floor and I am of the opinion that at these distances and with a row of substantial Pine trees along this boundary (which are covered by a TPO), no significant loss of residential amenity would occur.
6.31 Concerns have been expressed of increased light pollution as a result of the proposed development. The servicing of the non-food retail units is located facing Tollgate Road and any lighting and noise in this area would be screened from residential properties by the buildings themselves. The servicing area for the car workshop is located at the rear, along the boundary with the Bull and Dog bowling green and 55m from the pub itself. Some service and display parking would be on the garage forecourt at the rear of the proposed food outlet. This is 60m from the nearest residential property, Toll Barn Cottage. The location of the main service areas are, therefore, set away from residential properties. No specific details of lighting have been submitted to illuminate areas of car parking, and could be conditioned to ensure that the height and type of lighting is appropriate in this area. It is inevitable that an increase in traffic noise, light and general disturbance would occur as a result of the proposals. However, the site is allocated in the development plan for commercial use, including non-food retail. The principle of the proposed development has, therefore, already been accepted. It is, therefore, imperative that any development results in the minimum loss of residential and visual amenity as possible. I am satisfied that the proposals currently under consideration reflect an acceptable form of development.
6.32 In summarising the above issues, the starting point for making a decision is the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan. The site is allocated for non-food retail use and, therefore, the major element complies with the Development Plan. The emerging Local Plan should now be afforded considerable weight (in conjunction with PPS6) and this plan allocates the site for mixed use non- food retail and employment purposes with a requirement that the retail element consists of non-food bulky goods retail covering no more than 50% of the site. Whilst the proposal is mainly, compliant with Policy DE14A, I would emphasise that although 45% of the site would be developed for non-food retail, due to landscaping and service roads, only 34% of the remaining area would be developed for other uses and included within this are two food retail outlets and a mixed use retail car showroom and workshop. Only approximately 9% of the site would be used for the proposed B1 office use.
6.33 It would have been much more in the spirit of the new local plan policy for this site, and it would have been more in keeping with the PPS6 aim of delivering the appropriate type and scale of development that complements the role and function of nearby centres, if the scale of retail development was lower than that currently proposed.
6.34 However, in my view the main issue when considering the proposal is the need and impact of the scale of the non-food bulky goods retail element. Given the significant nature of the proposals, the Council engaged the services of a retail consultant to assess this need and impact. The consultant’s view was that there was a need for this type of development in order to retain the District’s market share in non-food retailing and in “clawing back” some of that currently lost to retail parks outside the District. Furthermore, they also concluded that there are no sequentially preferable sites that could accommodate the development as a whole or its constituent parts. The applicants highlight a number of retailers who could potentially occupy the proposed development although many do not fall within the retail uses identified under the allocation and it is important to stringently restrict types of goods sold in order to reduce potential impact upon existing town centres. Indeed, the consultant concludes that the proposed development may have a detrimental impact on Ormskirk town centre due to the scale of the retail floorspace and the existing retail function of Ormskirk being underpinned by the furniture and DIY sector. The draw of trade from Ormskirk town centre must be weighed against the need for a critical mass of retail units on the site to be effective and deliver the highway improvements and the site’s allocation for non-food retail in both the adopted and emerging Local Plan.
6.35 The proposed development is clearly in accordance with the site’s allocation in the Development Plan and the detailed criteria are for the most part, met. Other material considerations weigh in its favour, particularly the new roundabout at the junction of the A59 and Pippin Street. However, the scale of the non-food retail element at 8,183 sq.m. is significant and although it will claw back some of that expenditure currently lost to retail parks outside the District, will draw an amount of trade from Ormskirk town centre but this should be weighed against additional job creation in the proposed development. I acknowledge that due to the uniqueness of this type of proposal in the District, this is a finely balanced judgement to make. It also needs to be considered whether or not residential amenity would be harmed. On balance, I believe that, in this case, the scale of the impact of the non-food retail element, has been reduced to such an extent that planning permission should be granted.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the Executive Manager Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to the developer entering into a Section 106 Agreement to secure a bond of an appropriate sum to ensure completion of the B1 office development of the site; to deliver 10 coach spaces and to provide an appropriate commuted sum as a contribution towards public transport infrastructure.
7.2 That planning permission be subject to the following conditions :
1. SCT02 Standard time condition 2. SCP01 In accordance with Drawings Ref : 10215/002/101D Location Plan received 23.2.05 10215/002/102 Existing Survey received 23.2.05 10215/002/1071 Site Plan received 20.7.05 10215/002/201E Elevations received 20.7.05 10215/002/202D Elevations received 23.2.05 10215/002/203D Elevations received 23.2.05 10215/002/204D Elevations received 23.2.05 10215/002/205D Elevations received 23.2.05 10215/002/206E Elevations received 23.2.05 10215/002/207E Elevations received 20.7.05 10215/002/208D Elevations received 23.2.05 10215/002/209D Elevations received 23.2.05 10215/002/211 Elevations received 23.2.05 10215/002/212 Elevations received 23.2.05 10215/002/210E Elevations received 23.2.05 10215/002/213 Elevations received 23.2.05 10215/002/110A Site Area Plan received 13.7.05 10215/002/300 Site Sections received 20.7.05 3. The non-food retail units hereby approved shall be used solely for the retail sales of the following: DIY home improvement goods, furnishings, beds, electrical goods, furniture and floor coverings; and for no other purpose in Class A1 of the Schedule of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-erecting that order with or without modification 4. There shall be no internal alterations or sub-division of the non-food retail units either vertically or horizontally which would result in an increase in the number of retail units and/or an increase in retail floor space. 5. SCB14 Details of materials 6. SCB12 Access for disabled 7. SCB26 Submit levels 8. SCC01 No outside storage 9. No part of the development shall be commenced until all the highway works have been constructed in accordance with a scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. 10. SCH14 Mark out car park 11. SCH15 Wheel cleaning provision 12. SCL11 Submit landscaping implement prior to commencement of use of any building 13. SCL05 Detailed landscape survey – Condition 16/Scale 1:500 14. SCL14 Screen walls – replace ‘dwelling’ with ‘building’ 15. SCL16 Tree protection 16. SCL18 Service runs adjacent trees 17. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved, full details of lighting to be used on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority 18. SC03 Drainage 19. No sirens shall be activated by ambulances until outside the site boundary. 20. Prior to the operation of the ambulance station, an acoustic fence shall be erected of a design, height and position to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 21. SCB20 Landfill gas survey 22. The non-food bulky goods retail units, food outlets, car workshop and showroom and B1 office building shall only be open for business during the hours of 8 am to 10 pm Monday to Saturday and 9 am to 6 pm Sundays and Bank Holidays. 23. No deliveries shall take place outside the hours of 7 am and 11 pm Monday to Saturday and 9 am to 6 pm Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard time reason 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt. Policy SC14 3. To safeguard the vitality and viability of the District’s town centres in accordance with PPS6 and Policy S14 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 4. To safeguard the vitality and viability of the District’s town centres in accordance with PPS6 and Policy S14 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 5. RCB07 External appearance – Policy S14 6. RCB08 Effective use of car park 7. To protect the amenities of the adjoining residents and so comply with the provisions of Policy I.8 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 8. RCB09 Unsightliness 9. RCH01 Road Safety 10. RCH08 Effective use of car park 11. RCH09 Avoid mud on road 12. RCL09 Assimilate development 13. RCL07 Assess effect on trees 14. RCL09 Assimilate development 15. RCL06 Tree health 16. RCL06 Tree health 17. RCB03 Character of.. Replace “property” with “site”. Policy SC14 18. RCD03 Drainage 19. RCN01 Minimise noise 20. RCN01 Minimise noise 21. RCB06 Landfill gas protection 22. RCM03 Amenity of others. Policy SC14 23. RCM03 Amenity of others. Policy SC14
Standard Reason for Approval
SRA01 Policy SC14 Policy T.1 Policy T.2
NOTES
1. GEN07 Landfill Gas Disclaimer. 100m 2. GEN06 Landfill Gas Protection Measures 3. Please find attached, comments of the Local Access Group.
AV/JRH/PH ------
No. 18 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0813 LOCATION PINGWOOD LANE, SIMONSWOOD PROPOSAL COUNTY MATTER – CHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING TO WASTE TRANSFER STATION APPLICANT T & T CONTRACTS LIMITED WARD BICKERSTAFFE PARISH SIMONSWOOD 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 29.8.2005
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 8/02/0825 GRANTED 06.09.02 Single storey extension to existing sawmill.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 Executive Manager Environmental Services (22.08.05) - No objection to the application in principle, however to ensure there is no detriment to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers it is recommend that conditions be attached.
2.2 Executive Manager Environmental Services (01.08.05) – Within 350 m of former landfill site.
3.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
3.1 Simonswood PC (03.08.05) – Objects
4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 A petition of approx 625 names objecting to the development was received 05.08.05
4.2 Sixty-nine standardised responses received 05.08.05 objecting on the grounds of odour, vermin, traffic, hours of operation and close proximity to public facilities.
4.3 Road Issues Focus Group (21.07.05) – objects on the basis of increase HGV movements and proposed use is non-employment use.
4.4 G. Howarth MP (29.07.05) – objects due to impact on nearby residential areas resulting from increased HGV movements, noise, dust and odour.
5.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
5.1 The application relates to an existing industrial building approx. 18.5 x 122 x 10.8 (h) m sited within the Simonswood Industrial Park. The building is situated approx. 95 m into the site from the existing access point on Pingwood Lane and 15m south of a significantly larger building running along the northern edge of the industrial estate. A yard area 8 x 122 runs along the northern side of the building. The site has limited natural screening along Pingwood Lane. The nearest residential properties are sited to the west of the site at a minimum distance of approximately 135m on the western side of Pingwood Lane.
5.2 The application proposes the re-use of the existing building, formerly used as a sawmill, for waste transfer use. This use would consist of the reception of construction waste skips containing primarily inert construction waste, sorting of content and dispersion to appropriate waste reception sites.
5.3 It is anticipated the skips will contain, on average, 95% construction waste and approx. 5% bin bag waste. The waste will be entirely sorted within the building being hand-sorted into stockpiles – primarily metals; plastic; glass; wood and general inert material (hardcore, soil, etc.) Unauthorised materials will be quarantined and placed in sealed skips for appropriate disposal. The individual stockpiles, not exceeding 3m in height, will then be loaded using two construction vehicles within the building and removed from the site. The vehicles would be a rubber-tyred loading shovel and a 360o excavator with a grapple attachment. It is anticipated that up to 500 cubic metres of waste processing could be accommodated per day. Empty skips will be cleaned and stored outside the building. Skip wagons will also be parked in the outside yard during night time hours. The use would employ 10 staff and result in an estimated 50 heavy goods vehicle movements per day (25 in; 25 out). The proposed hours of operation are: Monday to Friday 0700 to 1900 Saturday 0700 to 1600 Sunday 0800 to 1600.
5.4 Policies I.2 ‘Development in Employment Areas’ and I.8 ‘Development Criteria for Industrial/Business Development’ of the adopted WLLP and Policies DE5 ‘Employment Development’ and GD1 ‘Design of Development’ of the Re- Deposit Replacement Local Plan are relevant in consideration of the application.
5.5 The proposed use falls within Class B2 ‘General Industry’ of the Use Class Order and is therefore regarded as an appropriate use under the above policies on this allocated industrial park. The use would not be out of keeping with the scale and type of other industrial uses on the industrial park and the existing access off Pingwood Lane is considered acceptable for the type and frequency of vehicles visiting the site.
5.6 The main areas of expressed concern are the impact of additional traffic on the local road network and the impact of the proposed use on residential amenity on the nearby Tower Hill estate, particularly with respect to noise, dust and odour.
5.7 In relation to vehicle movements the site is well placed in relation to the main road network, particularly the M58 and M57, however, links to these roads are via non-classified roads – Stopgate Lane; Shevington’s Lane and Headbolt Lane, the latter two being local distributor roads serving particularly the Tower Hill estate roads. Detailed assessment will be made by Knowsley MBC as highway authority for the area. However I note the concerns regarding the impact on residential amenity of increased traffic movements and have suggested conditions to safeguard residential amenity.
5.8 With respect to potential impacts on residential amenity, given that the sorting activities are to be entirely within the fully clad building, albeit proposed with doors to the east and west open, I consider the impacts with respect to noise and dust will be sufficiently contained within the building to prevent any nuisance resulting from the proposed use. Similarly, with respect to odour, as the proposal is for inert constriction waste it is not anticipated any significant detrimental impact on residential amenity would result. Regardless of the above, I consider some additional screening of the building would be advisable, particularly to the Pingwood Lane frontage, to provide the double benefit of improved appearance of the site but also to create a buffer zone between the industrial site and neighbouring residential areas.
5.9 In summary, whilst I acknowledge the scheme has given rise to numerous concerns in relation to traffic and amenity impacts on neighbouring properties I consider that, on balance, the scheme is in accordance with Local Plan policies and therefore should be supported subject to conditions.
6. RECOMMENDATION
6.1 That the Council raise NO OBJECTION subject to the following conditions, or equivalent, being applied in order to protect residential amenity in the adjacent residential areas:
1. No operations shall be carried out on the premises except between the hours of 0700 and 1900 Monday to Friday, 0700 and 1600 Saturdays and 0800 and 1600 on Sundays.
2. There shall be no movement of HGVs in or out of the premises except between the hours of 0700 and 1900 Monday to Friday, 0700 and 1600 Saturdays and 0800 and 1600 on Sundays.
3. Prior to commencement of the use hereby approved, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning officer, to demonstrate that the rating level of noise from the site shall not exceed the existing LA90 background noise level by more than 3dB(A) at the boundary of any of the nearby residential premises. All measurements and assessments shall be done in accordance with BS4142.1997.
4. The rating level of noise from the site shall not exceed the existing LA90 background noise level by more than 3dB(A) at the boundary of any of the nearby residential premises. All measurements and assessments shall be done in accordance with BS4142.1997.
5. Any sound produced by vehicle reversing alarms or indicators, when measured 1 metre from the façade of any nearby residential dwelling, shall not exceed 55dB LAmax between the hours of 0700 and 1900 on any day.
6. All emissions from the premises to the air shall be free from excessive offensive odour as measured at any nearby residential premises, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
7. Before the use of the site hereby permitted is brought into operation, facilities shall be provided within the site by which means the wheels of vehicles may be cleaned before leaving the site.
8. All reasonable measures shall be taken to ensure that the operations do not give rise to nuisance by virtue of dust or windblown material and shall include the use of water to suppress dust generated in all operational areas and the collection of windblown materials as necessary and in any event at the end of each working day.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall show the location, branch spread, and species of all existing trees and hedges; the location, species and number of all proposed trees, shrubs and hedges; and the location of all existing and proposed grassed and hard surfaced areas. Trees and shrubs planted shall comply with BS. 3936(Specification of Nursery Stock) and shall be planted in accordance with BS. 4428 (General Landscape Operations). Within a period of 9 months from the date when any part of the development is brought into use the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out. All planting shall be maintained and dead or dying material shall be replaced for a period of seven years from the agreed date of planting to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
10. Before any part of the development hereby approved is commenced details of vehicle routing to and from the site shall be agreed in writing with the relevant highway authority. Such routing shall thereafter be implemented to the satisfaction of the planning authority.
RH/JRH
No. 19 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0967 LOCATION MARLBOROUGH COURT, ASHURST, SKELMERSDALE. PROPOSAL LINK BETWEEN TWO SHELTERED ACCOMMODATION BLOCKS WITH A LIFT/STAIRCASE APPLICANT WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL WARD ASHURST PARISH N/A 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 30.9.2005
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 8/2004/0907 APPROVED 09.09.04 Construction of internal lift shaft projecting through the roof.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 None.
3.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
3.1 N/A
4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 None.
5.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
5.1 This application relates to a two storey block of aged persons apartments. The site lies within the main settlement of Skelmersdale in a residential area of Ashurst.
5.2 Permission is sought for a link building between two of the accommodation blocks to provide a lift / staircase. The link would measure approximately 17.6 metres by 2.3 meters with a square sectional tower middle section. The link would be single storey to one half and two storey to the other. Both sections would have a pitched roof, with the tower extending some 8.5 metres in height. This would not exceed the height of the highest part of the building as existing.
5.3 The extension would allow for the installation of a lift and staircase, giving access between both floors to each of the blocks. The link buildings would be rendered white to match the existing elevations with roof materials also to match those on the existing. All windows and doors would be timber.
5.4 Policy C.1 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan states that extensions to buildings in community use should relate well to the adjacent buildings and should not be detrimental to the amenity of adjacent land users.
5.5 The proposed extensions will not be visually prominent by reason of their size, design and positioning and due to the size of the existing buildings on site. No loss of light or amenity will be caused to the occupiers of the apartments or of the neighbouring residential properties.
6. RECOMMENDATION
6.1 That planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions :
1. SCTO2 – Standard Time Condition 2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with details shown on the following plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:- Plan reference 11900-001 dwg 03 Rev1 and dwg Rev1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 16th August 2005 and Plan reference 11900-001 dwg 04 received by the Local Planning Authority on 21st July 2005. 3. All external render and roofing materials shall be identical, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, to those on the existing building in respect of shape, size, colour and texture.
Reasons
1. RCTO2 – Standard Time Reason/Full Planning Permission 2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy C1 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 3. To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory and that the development therefore complies with the provisions of Policy C1 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.
NOTES
1. GEN08 Building Regulations 2. GEN11 Access to Buildings for the Fire Brigade 3. GEN12 Planning Permission Only 4. GEN17 Amended Plans
Reason for Approval
SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policy C.1
GI/JRH