AGENDA ITEM: 7 PLANNING COMMITTEE: 25 May 2006 Report Of

AGENDA ITEM: 7

PLANNING COMMITTEE:

25 May 2006

Report Of: Executive Manager Planning and Development Services

Contact for further information: Mr J.R.Harrison (Extn.5132)

SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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 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.

Equality Impact Assessment There is no evidence from an initial assessment of an adverse impact on equality in relation to the equality target groups.

CONTENTS SHEET

Report Ward Application Site Location Proposal Recommendation Number Number 1 Newburgh 2006/0022 Bleak Hall Erection of Planning Farm,Bleak detached Permission Lane,Lathom dwelling to Refused replace existing holiday flat and residential caravan.

2 Tarleton 2006/0167 Land at,Gorse Outline - Outline Planning Lane,Tarleton Residential Permission development Refused (affordable housing).

3 Scarisbrick 2006/0323 Brandreth Farm, Conversion of Planning Tarlscough barn/shippon to Permission Lane,Burscough agricultural Refused workers dwelling.

4 Scarisbrick 2006/0303 24,Pool Hey Demolition of Planning Lane, existing semi- Permission Scarisbrick detached Granted bungalow and erection of detached dormer dwelling with integral garage and detached plant room.

5 Rufford 2006/0347 Chasewood Change of use Planning Broilers,off of two Permission Liverpool agricultural Refused Road,Rufford buildings to caravan storage.

6 North Meols 2005/1110 Land east side Erection of Planning of,Boltons glasshouse Permission Cop,Banks together with Granted irrigation pit, windbreak and concrete hardstanding to provide parking/service area.

7 North Meols 2006/0097 Greaves Listed Building Listed Building Hall,Greaves Consent - Consent Hall Demolition of Granted Avenue,Banks mansion house.

8 Newburgh 2006/0336 Round O County Matter - No Objections Quarry,Cobbs Development of Brow an aggregates Lane,Newburgh recycling facility within curtilage of existing quarry.

9 Bickerstaffe 2006/0063 New Bridge Formation of Planning Farm, two fishing lakes Permission Stopgate Lane, and associated Granted Simonswood landscaping. Provision of new access road and car park. Demolition of existing barn and replacement building to provide storage, ticket sales and toilet facilities.

10 Bickerstaffe 2005/0393 Plot B (Unit Reserved Reserved 2),Excel Matters - Matters Granted Business Erection of Park,Statham building for B2 Road, and/or B8 Skelmersdale purposes with ancillary offices. Formation of vehicle parking areas; creation of access from existing estate road and landscaping.

11 Aughton & 2006/0382 31,Turnpike First floor Planning Downholland Road,Aughton extension at Permission side. Granted

12 Bickerstaffe 2005/1519 XL Business Variation of Planning Park,Statham Condition No. 1 Permission Road,Stanley imposed on Granted Ind Estate, planning Skelmersdale permission 8/2000/0801 to extend the period for submission of reserved matters to 20 December 2008.

13 Scarisbrick 2006/0292 Black Brook Erection of five Planning Farm, timber holiday Permission Jacksmere chalets. Change Refused Lane, of use and Scarisbrick alterations to polytunnel to form stable block.

AGENDA ITEM: 7

PLANNING COMMITTEE: 25th May 2006

Report Of: Executive Manager Planning and Development Services

Contact for further information: J.R.Harrison (Extn.5132)

SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATIONS

No. 1 APPLICATION No. 8/2006/0022 LOCATION Bleak Hall Farm,Bleak Lane,Lathom PROPOSAL Erection of detached dwelling to replace existing holiday flat and residential caravan. APPLICANT Mr & Mrs J Fairclough WARD Newburgh PARISH Lathom 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 03 MAR 2006

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

2.0 DEFERRAL

2.1 The application was deferred to consider the impact of the proposal on the character of the area.

3.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

3.1 8/2005/1157 REFUSED (07.11.05) Erection of detached dwelling to replace existing holiday flat and residential caravan.

3.2 8/2002/1416 GRANTED ( 03.03.03) refurbishment of remaining part of original farmhouse to provide holiday cottage

4.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

4.1 NATIONAL GRID (20.01.06) - No impact on pipeline

4.2 HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE (25.01.06) - Do not advise against the granting of permission on safety grounds

5.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 I have received 5 letters that state they have no objection to the proposal.

6.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL

6.1 LATHOM PARISH COUNCIL (06.02.06) - Cannot see how application differs from previous submission. Object as no special circumstances have been put forward to go against the moratorium.

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

7.1 The site at present contains a disused dilapidated building located on the northern side of Bleak Lane. It forms part of a group of buildings in agricultural use. The site is within the Green Belt. It is proposed to erect a dwelling on the site in place of an existing caravan and the dilapidated building.

7.2 The new dwelling would measure approximately 9.8 metes by 7.1 metres with a ridge height of 7.3 metres. It would be sited some 25 metres further into the site than the existing dilapidated building. The siting is closer to the existing caravan, some 3 metres to the front of it.

7.3 Members will note that this is a re-submission of a previous planning application refused by myself in November 2005 under the Council's scheme of delegation.

7.4 In 1971 planning permission was granted for the erection of a new farmhouse (8/5/5822). The building was to replace the original farmhouse, to which this current application relates. This should have been demolished prior to the occupation of the new farmhouse, but due to a 15-year passage of time before this was noted, no enforcement action could be taken. Planning permission was granted in March 2003 for the refurbishment of the remaining part of the original farmhouse to provide a holiday cottage.

7.5 A caravan was sited on the land during the construction of the new farmhouse in the 1970's. This was replaced in 1983 with another caravan and although planning permission has never been applied for the caravan, a permanent residential use has been established by the passage of time.

7.6 The main issue is whether the proposal complies with Policy GB.5 of the Local Plan relating to replacement dwellings in the Green Belt. As the caravan has an established residential use right, Policy DE1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan is not applicable as any replacement dwelling would not add to the current housing supply.

7.7 The caravan is not constructed of brick, stone or a similar material. Its walls are rendered and its roof is tiled. I consider that it must be regarded as a mobile home. Policy GB.5 states specifically that in order to comply with this policy the existing dwelling must be constructed of brick, stone or a similar material and more specifically must not be a mobile home or a temporary structure. The proposal therefore does not comply with criterion vi of policy GB.5

7.8 The applicants have put forward a justification for this proposal in so much as the existing caravan would be removed along with the remaining parts of the original farmhouse. They consider that when taken together, the removal of these two structures and the replacement of them with one detached dwelling, that the impact upon the openness of the Green Belt would be significantly reduced. In order to demonstrate this, calculations have been submitted which show that the volume of the proposed dwelling would be less than the existing original farmhouse and caravan.

7.9 I do not consider that just the volume needs to be assessed when considering whether or not the replacement dwelling would be materially larger than the structures that it would replace. The fact that two structures are to be replaced by one, in my opinion, cannot be considered as a justification in its own right.

7.10 The overall bulk of the proposed dwelling is significantly more than the structures it would replace, mainly in terms of the additional second floor elements. The caravan is single storey in design and the original farmhouse is almost 5 metres smaller in width than the proposed replacement dwelling. I consider that these factors would result in the replacement dwelling having a materially greater impact on the visual amenity, character and openness of the Green Belt than the existing caravan and building.

7.11 Overall I consider that the proposal does not comply with Policy GB.5 and Policy DS2 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons

1. The proposed development conflicts with Policy GB.5 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan relating to the replacement of dwellings in the Green Belt, Policy DS2 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan relating to Protecting the Green Belt and advice given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 Green Belts in that the existing caravan is not constructed of brick, stone or similar material and is therefore regarded as a mobile home.

2. The proposed development conflicts with Policy GB.5 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan relating to the replacement of dwellings in the Green Belt, Policy DS2 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan relating to Protecting the Green Belt and advice given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 Green Belts in that the replacement dwelling would be materially larger than the existing buildings, to the extent that it would detract from the visual amenity, character and openness of the Green Belt.

No. 2 APPLICATION No. 8/2006/0167 LOCATION Land at,Gorse Lane,Tarleton PROPOSAL Outline - Residential development (affordable housing). APPLICANT Mr J Bridge WARD Tarleton PARISH Tarleton 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 11 APR 2006

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 None

3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

3.1 UNITED UTILITIES (27.02.06) - No objections

3.2 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (Highways) (21.03.06) - Objects as insufficient information provided for this low accessibility site.

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Objections from 13 parties on the following grounds:

- Development lies outside the settlement boundaries - Other preferential sites within and outside the settlement both greenfield and brownfield are available and more appropriate/sustainable. - If approved would open floodgates for further such proposals - set precedent. - Appropriate densities are unachievable on this site due to Green Belt restrictions. - Loss of highway safety - The applicant's claim that such development results in less car use than market housing is a misconception. - No safe pedestrian access to village. - Required sightlines not achievable within site. - No traffic impact information provided. - Local amenities and services at capacity - proposal will add further pressure. - No ecological assessment of the site has taken place. - Utilities at capacity. - Public transport in the locality is limited and encourages car use. - Loss of visual amenity.

5.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL

5.1 TARLETON PARISH COUNCIL (25.04.06) - Objects on the basis the site lies within the Green Belt and consider the proposal is contrary to policy H.6.

6.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

6.1 A supporting statement is submitted with the application forwarding the following arguments:

- The proposal addresses identified local housing need. - No evidence of alternative sites within the area being readily available for such development that could provide the same level of provision as the application site or have acceptable access - Policies allow limited affordable housing for local needs in the Green Belt. - Site within short distance of village centre and public transport facilities - PPG3 provides for village expansion where necessary to provide for local needs. - The points raised above constitute a case of 'very special circumstances' if the Council consider the application not to be in accordance with national policy.

- Local affordable housing need should be met in Tarleton rather than elsewhere in the District.

- It could be assumed that given the nature of the proposal there would be less reliance on private vehicles and therefore will not add significant increased pressure on the local road infrastructure.

A brief and limited assessment of the availability of alternative sites has been provided demonstrating alternative sites are unavailable or incapable of such development.

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

7.1 The application site is a subdivided field to rough grass of approx. 0.46 Ha. located to the northern side of Gorse Lane approx. 85 metres from the settlement boundary within the Green Belt. The site currently appears unused but includes two small glasshouses and one wooden shed. The site is bordered by post and wire fencing with an intermittent hedge to the road frontage and more established mature hedge to the northern boundary. A dwelling lies adjacent to the application site at its eastern end. Gorse Lane is subject to a 60 m.p.h. speed limit in this locality.

7.2 The application is in outline only to establish the acceptability of affordable housing in the locality. No further details are submitted for consideration at this time.

7.3 Policies GB.1 Control over Development in the Green Belt, H.8 Affordable Housing in Rural Areas and LN.2 Areas of Landscape History Importance of the West Lancashire Local Plan; and, Policies DS1 Location of Development, DS2 Protecting the Green Belt, DE1 Residential Development, DE3 Affordable Housing Development and GD1.8 Area of Landscape History - Local Importance of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan are relevant in consideration of this application. In addition, PPG3 - Housing and Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Affordable Housing' (Nov. 2004) and 'Managing Housing Supply' (Nov. 2004) are also relevant in consideration of this matter.

7.4 Policies GD.1 and DS2 of the respective plans relating to development in the Green Belt allow for very limited affordable housing providing there are no suitable sites within the main and rural settlements, or land allocated as OL.2 Protected Land in the West Lancashire Local Plan or DS4 in the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan. Due to the size of the site and given the required minimum density of 40 units per hectare the proposal would potentially result in the provision of a minimum of 18 units. I would not consider this amount of units as falling within the definition of 'very limited' affordable housing and would therefore not be in line with adopted Green Belt policy.

7.5 Further to the above, it is also necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that no potential sites for affordable housing development exist within the settlement areas or allocated Protected Land. However, the study submitted in attempt to provide such an argument is, in my opinion, limited in its methodology, detail and coverage. The applicant suggests that many sites are unavailable on the market, are currently in use, are inappropriate by virtue of their distance from the village centre or are currently not accessible by public transport.

7.6 As part of the sequential approach to justify Green Belt sites the Council would require the submission of evidence that the landowners/businesses have been contacted to discuss the possibility of selling or developing their land. Similarly, for instance, where access constraints are stated these should be assessed for alternative access (and any consequential requirement to discuss with landowners) and verified by the highway authority. Such detail has not been provided within the study on this occasion. It is also noteworthy that an area of allocated OL.2/DS4 land in excess of 18 Ha., which lies directly south of the application site, has substantially been omitted from the study.

7.7 Given the above, I consider the proposal to be contrary to Green Belt policy. On this basis it is therefore necessary for the applicant to demonstrate a case for 'very special circumstances' that would justify the development to the extent it would outweigh any resultant harm to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt.

7.8 The applicant submits that the site, in being located within a short walking distance of the village centre (approx. 230 m) and public transport routes, is a sustainable site for development and that the absence of other sites in such close proximity to the centre, or of a scale proposed here, gives it justification under PPG3 (amendment 'Planning for Sustainable Communities in Rural Areas) as an appropriate site for providing affordable housing. It is also argued that the location of the site addresses local need locally and that the type of development proposed does not generate significant private transport requirements, rather an assumption exists that occupiers are more likely to use public transport in this

7.9 In response to those arguments, whilst it is accepted that the site lies in close proximity to the village centre, other sites, not demonstrated as being unavailable are equally located within similar distances, not least the DS4 allocation immediately south of the site. The rural exceptions policy (PPG3) referred to above only relates to small sites within or adjoining existing small communities - given the size of the settlement and the opportunity of sites within the settlement and brownfield sites about its fringes, I would give little weight to this argument. Finally, arguments in relation to the lower demand on private vehicle use may be accepted i.e. that affordable/sheltered housing generally generates lower amounts of private car use; however, this is not

always the case and, given the lack of pedestrian provision to the northern side of Gorse Lane in this locality and the derestricted speed limit, I would express grave concerns over access safety at the site and the ability of the proposed development to deliver any improvement to the existing situation.

7.10 In assessing the above arguments I would conclude that insufficient special circumstances exist override Green Belt policy or to warrant departure from the Development Plan. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of policies GB.1 of the adopted plan and policies DS1, DS2 and DE1 of the Re- Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan.

8.0 DEPARTURE APPLICATION

8.1 The proposal is a departure case from the Development Plan in that it involves development 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 for the Environment if the Council is minded to approve it.

9.0 RECOMMENDATION

9.1 That outline planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons

1. The proposal, by virtue of its scale, constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and so conflicts with advice given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 Green Belts, Policy GB.1 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and policy DS2 of the Re-Deposit Draft of the West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan. 2. The proposed development conflicts with Policy H.8 of the West Lancashire Local Plan; Policies DE1, DS1 and DE3 of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan and adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Managing Housing Supply' and 'Affordable Housing' by virtue of the proposed location outside the settlement boundary. ------

No. 3 APPLICATION No. 8/2006/0323 LOCATION Brandreth Farm,Tarlscough Lane,Burscough PROPOSAL Conversion of barn/shippon to agricultural workers dwelling. APPLICANT Mr & Mrs W Wilson WARD Scarisbrick PARISH Burscough 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 15 MAY 2006

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

2.0 REFERRAL

2.1 This application was to be determined under the Council's Delegation Scheme, however, Councillor Cropper has requested it be referred to the Committee to consider the business justification for the application.

3.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

3.1 8/05/1415 WITHDRAWN. (11.1.06). Conversion of barn/shippon to agricultural workers dwelling.

4.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

4.1 ENGLISH NATURE (27.3.06) - no objections. DEFRA licence may be required.

4.2 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (31.3.06) - no objections.

4.3 LCC COUNTY LAND AGENCY MANAGER (8.5.06) - functional need of the holding met by existing presence on site with no further need justified.

5.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 None received.

6.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL

6.1 None received.

7.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

7.1 The applicants agent has submitted a financial statement together with a planning support document. The planning support documents is contained upon the planning application file and can be viewed on the Council's website. These documents conclude the following.

'Notwithstanding the initial comments of the County Land Agent, it is considered that there is a strong case for a further agricultural worker's dwelling on this site. Furthermore, use will be made of an existing barn, so there will be no new building on the site nor will Green Belt Policy be breached in this respect. In terms of Policies DE1 and DS2 there is a specific local need and alternative uses are not feasible. Finally it will facilitate protection of an interesting 300 year old structure'.

8.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

8.1 The site comprises a yard area for an agricultural holding to the south-western side of Tarlscough Lane, Burscough, within the Green Belt. The site consists of various buildings including a dwelling, a converted barn used for bed and breakfast accommodation, various agricultural buildings and structures and a brick and slate barn measuring approximately 20.7m x 6.6.m x 7.0m (height) - the subject of this application.

8.2 The proposal is for conversion of the barn to residential accommodation for an agricultural worker.

8.3 The relevant planning policies within the determination of this planning association are AG.7 (Agricultural Worker's Dwellings) and GB.7 (Use of Rural Buildings in the Green Belt) of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan together with Policies DE1 (Residential Development) and GD1 (Design of Development) of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan.

8.4 The main issues for consideration within the determination of this planning application are the principle of the proposal in planning policy terms and if this is acceptable whether or not the scheme of conversion detracts from the visual appearance and character of the barn.

8.5 The need to provide accommodation for an agricultural worker's dwelling has been assessed by the County Land Agent. He has concluded that the functional need for the holding is already met by the existing dwelling and that no need has been demonstrated on agricultural or other grounds to justify the grant of planning permission. As such the proposal is considered contrary to current housing policy.

8.6 With respect to the proposed physical works to the barn, the conversion requires in the order of 30% re-build and the formation of significant additional openings to the eastern elevation. The extent of re-build is more than that allowed under current or emerging policy. Whilst I accept that, had a proven need for an agricultural worker's dwelling been demonstrated, then it would be preferential to retain the building for conversion rather than erect an additional purpose built dwelling. However, as the need has not been proven this issue remains a point for consideration and should be included as a reason for refusal.

8.7 Finally, the additional openings by virtue of their number and layout are not considered consistent with the character of the existing building.

9.0 RECOMMENDATION

9.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons :

Reasons

1. The proposed development conflicts with the advice contained in Planning Policy Statement 7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; Policy AG.7 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and DE1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan in that it has not been demonstrated that it is essential for the worker to live close to the enterprise.

2. The proposed development conflicts with Policy DE1 of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan (approved November 2004); Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Managing Housing Supply' (November 2004); Policy I2 of the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan 2001-2016; Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing) and Policies UR.7 and UR.8 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (PPG13), in that it would contribute to an oversupply of housing land in West Lancashire based on the current Structure Plan target. 3. The proposed development conflicts with Policy GB.7 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and DS2 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement 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 the proposals require an excessive amount of re-build and are not architecturally consistent with the character of the existing building. ------

No. 4 APPLICATION No. 8/2006/0303 LOCATION 24,Pool Hey Lane,Scarisbrick PROPOSAL Demolition of existing semi-detached bungalow and erection of detached dormer dwelling with integral garage and detached plant room. APPLICANT Michael Crawford-Roberts WARD Scarisbrick PARISH Scarisbrick 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 11 MAY 2006

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

2.0 REFERRAL

2.1 This application was to be determined under the Council's Delegation Scheme, however, Councillor Cropper has requested it to be referred to the Committee to consider the impact on the attached neighbouring property and streetscene.

3.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

3.1 8/2005/1296 REFUSAL. 17.2.06. Demolition of existing semi-detached bungalow and erection of replacement detached dwelling with integral garage and detached plant room.

4.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

4.1 UNITED UTILITIES (23.3.06) - No objection to the proposal.

4.2 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (24.4.06) - To ensure that noise from the plant room is not detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers suggest condition placed upon any planning permission granted.

5.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Three letters of objection received. The grounds of objection being :

- Understand that whilst the building is not sound, renovation or a modest scale of rebuild would be more in keeping with the properties on Pool Hey Lane.

- Would have a detrimental impact upon the privacy of adjoining residents.

- Reservations about how many and how deep piles will have to be driven into the ground to support this development and the repercussions this may have upon the adjoining property, i.e. cracks to exterior rendering and interior plasterwork.

6.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL

6.1 SCARISBRICK PARISH COUNCIL (5.4.06) - Objects on the same grounds as those previously stated in respect of application 8/2005/1296 which are :

(i) The detrimental impact on the adjoining property. (ii) Concern and objections from neighbouring residents.

7.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

7.1 The applicant has submitted a copy of a letter with regards to a survey undertaken by a Structural Surveyor that concludes that the proposed development will have no impact upon the structural stability or foundations to No. 22 Pool Hey Lane.

8.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

8.1 The site comprises of a semi-detached bungalow situated on Pool Hey Lane, which is within the main settlement of Scarisbrick. The street as a whole comprises of a mix of residential properties ranging from true bungalow to two-storey detached dwellings. The adjoining property is similar in design to No. 24, with the adjacent neighbour, No. 26 also being a bungalow.

8.2 It is proposed to demolish the existing semi-detached bungalow and erect a two-storey detached dwelling. The front elevation of the dwelling would be sited slightly behind the two neighbouring properties. The dwelling would be 6.8m in ridge height, which is 0.9m higher than the existing bungalow. The dwelling would comprise of 4 bedrooms, living areas, an integral garage, an attached swimming pool and conservatory and detached single storey plant room.

8.3 Members may recall that a previous planning application ref. 8/2005/1296 for a similar form of development was refused permission at your February Committee as it was considered that the proposal was out of character with adjacent properties and consequently had a detrimental impact upon the streetscene. The design and scale of this proposed dwelling is essentially the same as the previous scheme. The difference is essentially to the design of the front elevation of the proposed dwelling in that one of the two-storey high front gable projections has been deleted and replaced with a small dormer window.

8.4 Policy H.4 of the West Lancashire Local Plan concerns the Design Criteria for Residential Development. Policies GD1 and DE1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan concern the Design of Development and Residential Development. Assessing the proposal against these policies I do not consider that the proposed dwelling would have any detrimental impact upon the amenity of any neighbouring property. The dwelling has been designed so as there are no windows to habitable rooms directly facing either neighbouring property. Bathroom and en-suite windows on the gable ends are to be obscurely glazed to prevent any loss of privacy or amenity. The dwelling would reduce to single-storey in height to the rear section, which means that only 2 metres of the two-storey element of the dwelling would project beyond the rear of No. 22 Pool Hey Lane with none of the dwelling extending beyond the rear of No. 26.

8.5 No. 26 Pool Hey Lane has one bathroom window and 2 very small lounge windows to the side elevation facing onto No. 24. Given the nature of these windows and the fact that there is a conservatory to the rear of the lounge, I do not consider that there would be any detrimental loss of light, overshadowing or outlook to the occupiers of this property. Furthermore, the existing boundary fence is to be replaced by a two metre high fence along this boundary. Similarly as No. 22 will have a blank gable once No. 24 is demolished there will be no loss of amenity to the occupiers of this property, again with a new boundary fence being erected. 8.6 The plot of land is long in nature, and even though the replacement dwelling covers a larger footprint than the existing bungalow, adequate amenity space would remain to the rear and front of the site to provide a very good-sized garden. There is adequate off-street parking within the front of the site and an integral garage is also proposed.

8.7 With regard to the points of objection received I would comment as follows. I do not consider that there would be any loss of privacy to neighbouring properties as a result of the proposal. There would be approximately 22 metres in distance between the front elevation of the new dwelling and those to the properties on the opposite side of Pool Hey Lane. No habitable room windows would directly overlook either adjacent property with bathroom windows being obscurely glazed. There would also be no detrimental loss of light or overshadowing by reason of the design and positioning of the proposed dwelling, as mentioned within Paragraph 8.4 above. As previously stated there is a good mix of different types of dwellings along Pool Hey Lane, and whilst on the opposite side of the road the dwellings are either bungalows or dormer bungalows, the side on which No. 24 is situated does have a mix of two-storey dwellings and dormer bungalows. For this reason I do not consider that the proposed dwelling would be incongruous within the street scene as a whole. The points of concern relating to the impact on the adjoining occupiers during construction works, is not a material planning consideration.

8.8 Overall, I consider that the proposal complies with Policy H.4 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policies GD1 and DE1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan.

9.0 RECOMMENDATION

9.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions :-

Conditions

1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

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 MC/2005/PL0202A received by the Local Planning Authority on 16th March 2006 and MC/2005/PL03A received by the Local Planning Authority on 16th March 2006.

3. The bathroom, en-suite and dressing room window(s) on the north, south and east elevations along with the southern elevation of the conservatory shall be fitted with obscure glass prior to commencement of use of the development hereby approved, and shall remain thus fitted at all times thereafter.

4. Before the development hereby approved is commenced details of the proposed screen walls and/or fences shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such walls and/or fences shall be erected as an integral part of the development and completed to each dwelling before that dwelling is first occupied.

5. The contents of the pool and any pool filter backwash shall only be discharged to the foul drainage system via a pipe of not more than 50mm diameter.

6. The rating level of noise emitted from any plant or machinery used in connection with the proposed pool shall not exceed 3db Laeq at any time at any point on the boundary of the site. Any measurement and assessment shall be made in accordance with BS4142 1997. Method for rating industrial noise affecting residential and industrial areas.

7. The swimming pool shall be used for private use only and shall not be used for any commercial use or business.

8. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved full details and samples of the external brickwork & roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy H.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

3. To protect the privacy of adjacent residential properties and so comply with the provisions of Policy H.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

4. To protect the privacy of adjacent residential properties and so comply with the provisions of Policy H.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

5. To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the pool in the interest of public amenity and to comply with the requirements of Policy P.2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan.

6. To safeguard the amenity of adjacent properties and the area generally and so comply with the provisions of Policy H.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

7. To safeguard the amenity of adjacent properties and the area generally and so comply with the provisions of Policy H.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

8. To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory and that the development therefore complies with the provisions of Policy H.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. Reason for Approval

1. The Local Planning Authority has considered the proposed development in the context of the Development Plan including in particular the following Policy/Policies in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan:

Policy H.1 Residential Development in the main settlements Policy H.4 Design Criteria for residential development

together with Supplementary Planning Guidance and all relevant material considerations. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal complies with the relevant Policy criteria and is acceptable in the context of all relevant material considerations as set out in the Officer's Report. This report can be viewed or a copy provided on request to the Local Planning Authority. ------

No. 5 APPLICATION No. 8/2006/0347 LOCATION Chasewood Broilers,off Liverpool Road,Rufford PROPOSAL Change of use of two agricultural buildings to caravan storage. APPLICANT Mr & Mrs S Smith WARD Rufford PARISH Rufford 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 19 MAY 2006

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

2.0Not to scale.OBSERVATIONS © Crown Copyright. All Rights OF CONSULTEESReserved. Licence No.100024309. West Lancashire District Council. 2005

2.1 HERITAGE AND POLICY MANAGER (31.03.06) - No Objections

2.2 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS (19.04.06) - Objects on the following road safety grounds : - Visibility in both directions is substantially below the standard recommended for a 30mph road. - The access is situated on the inside of a bend and is inconspicuous with no forward warning of its existence. - There are no radii at the junction and no possibility of improvement of land either under the applicants control or within the highway. - The access is opposite the access for Rufford Old Hall. - It would be impossible to manoeuvre caravans either into or out of this site access without using the full carriageway width of Liverpool Road, which would create an unacceptable hazard.

3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 4 letters of objection have been received from neighbouring properties. The following issues have been raised: - Traffic safety - Access is narrow and only allows one vehicle at a time to enter or leave the site

- Access is on a bend on the A59 and visibility is bad - Damage to residents fences from vehicles - Concerned about noise levels and unsociable hours as vehicles enter and leave the site - The access is opposite the main entrance to Rufford Old Hall

4.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL

4.1 RUFFORD PARISH COUNCIL (12.04.06) - Objects; Concerned that this is a change from agriculture to commercial and access to the site not suitable

5.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

5.1 A supporting statement has been submitted with the application, the main points being:

- This is a farm diversification project, which has been formulated in consideration with advice contained in PPG2 and PPS7 and the Development Plan - The proposal has been put forward as a result in decline in the existing quail farming business and an attempt to utilise unused space on the site to produce revenue to compensate for financial losses associated with the decline in business - The proposal as submitted would represent an improvement in terms of vehicular movements associated with the use of the site

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

6.1 The application relates to two existing agricultural buildings at Chasewood Broilers in Rufford.

6.2 The application is for a change of use of two buildings from agricultural use to caravan storage. The buildings are currently used in connection with the quail breeding business, which has suffered a decline in recent years. This has led to two of the sheds becoming underused. As a result the applicant wishes to diversify and use the buildings for a commercial use. The caravans will be entirely stored within both buildings and it is not proposed to store any caravans outside. Access to the two buildings will be from Liverpool Road (A59), an existing access east of the site used by Banks Farm and the neighbouring Fayregame Ltd.

6.3 The site is located within Green Belt as defined by both the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan. The buildings are situated partly within and partly adjoining the Rufford Park Conservation Area.

6.4 The main issues for consideration within the determination of this planning application are the principle of the change of use in planning policy terms, the effects of the development upon both the Green Belt and the Conservation Area and the highway implications of the proposal.

6.5 In terms of the principle of the change of use, Policy AG.4 and GB.7 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan does allow for the re-use of existing buildings on farms for small-scale non-retail commercial development. Given that the application relates solely to a change of use of buildings I consider that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect upon the character, the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt. I am also satisfied that the proposed use is subsidiary to the main quail business and assists in rural diversification. Additionally the change of use would have a minimal impact upon the conservation area.

6.6 With regard to access arrangements there is an objection on road safety grounds from the highway authority. Access will be taken from an existing access onto the A59 Liverpool Road. This is a narrow access, measuring 4m wide, that runs between two residential properties, The Rookery and 193 Liverpool Road. The access only allows one vehicle to pass at any one time. Visibility from the access in both directions is substantially below the standard recommended for a 30mph road. In addition the access is situated on the inside of a bend and is inconspicuous with no forward warning of its existence. Due to the above factors there is concern that there will be severe manoeuvring difficulties, which will require caravans and their towing vehicle to use the full width of A59 to access and egress the site entrance.

6.7 Whilst it is accepted that this access has existing highway safety issues there is concern that this is a sub standard access, which would create an unacceptable hazard if caravans were to manoeuvre either into or out of this site. As a result the proposal does not comply with the provisions of Policy T.2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy GD.1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed access to the site is inadequate as it is only 4.0m wide and does not allow two vehicles to pass. The access is located on the inside of a bend on Liverpool Road and is inconspicuous with no forward warning of its existence therefore the proposed development will conflict with the provisions of Policy T.2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy GD.1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan.

2. The visibility splays in both directions on Liverpool Road are substantially below the minimum standard required by the Local Planning Authority and the proposed development will therefore conflict with the provisions of Policy T.2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy GD.1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan.

3. The proposed access to the site is inadequate as it is only 4.0m wide and does not allow two vehicles to pass. The access is located on the inside of a bend on Liverpool Road and is inconspicuous with no forward warning of its existence therefore the proposed development will conflict with the provisions of Policy T.2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy GD.1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan.

4. The visibility splays in both directions on Liverpool Road are substantially below the minimum standard required by the Local Planning Authority and the proposed development will therefore conflict with the provisions of Policy T.2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy GD.1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan.

No. 6 APPLICATION No. 8/2005/1110 LOCATION Land east side of,Boltons Cop,Banks PROPOSAL Erection of glasshouse together with irrigation pit, windbreak and concrete hardstanding to provide parking/service area. APPLICANT Alan Baybutt & Sons WARD North Meols PARISH North Meols 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 21 OCT 2005

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

2.0 REFERRAL

2.1 The application was to be determined under the Council's delegation scheme, however, Councillor John Baldock has requested it be referred to the Committee to consider the impact on the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt.

3.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

3.1 None.

4.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

4.1 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (24.04.06) - From the additional information provided on the positioning and noise levels of the heaters it is considered that they will not be detrimental to the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at Wood End Nurseries, subject to conditions restricting the noise levels at the boundaries of this or any other property and the hours of operation.

4.2 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (Highways) (04.05.06) - The revised access, shown on Drawing No. 05/151/02B is now acceptable. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to limit the width of the access to 10 metres in order to reduce speeds and to avoid acute angles of entry to or departure from the highway.

Additional conditions are also required to preserve visibility along the site frontage, require the existing access to be blocked up and the new access to be hard-surfaced in order to prevent loose material being deposited on the highway.

4.3 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (26.04.06) - The proposed development is located at the edge of Flood Zone 3, which combines the high risk tidal and fluvial flood risk areas. The only concern relates to the bunding around the proposed irrigation pit and the potential risk of displacing floodwater during an extreme event. However, due to the proximity of the irrigation pit to the edge of the flood risk area and the isolation of the site any displacement of floodwaters would not detrimentally affect adjacent properties and so it is considered that the proposal would not exacerbate the risk of flooding elsewhere.

The cross-section through the site demonstrates that the distance between the adjacent ditch is considered to be great enough to be ensure that the irrigation pit will not weaken the structure of the ditch. The proposed outfall structure will need the consent of the Environment Agency.

4.4 COUNTY LAND AGENT (25.11.05) - The applicant operates an established salad and celery growing operation centred on a site at 467 Moss Lane. The business has been operated by the family for many years. The proposed glass is intended to grow curly lettuce for harvesting outside of the outdoor varieties.

It is evident that the reason for the proposed glasshouses is to expand agricultural production on the unit. It is considered that the development is justified on agricultural grounds. The windbreak is intended to reduce the instances of damage/breakage to the glasshouses and is considered to be justified.

The proposed siting is detached from the applicant's centre of farm operations at 467 Moss Lane, although it is reasonably closely sited to other buildings on the neighbouring property. It is recognised that the nature of the applicant's farm enterprise involves farming various parcels of land around the West Lancashire area and on that basis it is felt that the siting of the glasshouses would have little or no adverse operational consequences to the overall running of the business and would not involve a particularly high level of management or an on site presence (caravans).

4.5 UNITED UTILITIES (14.09.05) - No objection to the proposals.

5.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 None.

6.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL

6.1 NORTH MEOLS PC (12.10.05) - The Parish Council express the hope that due diligence is given to ensure that the site does not become a site for temporary accommodation and that any accommodation needed for workers is met under the current SPG for seasonal agricultural workers.

7.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

7.1 The applicant has submitted a supporting statement indicating that the applicant is a specialist salad producer and that the additional glasshouses are needed to meet contracts with major supermarkets.

7.2 Additional points have also been made, which are as follows;

- The additional glasshouses will enable salad production to start earlier and continue later in the season. - The extension of the traditional season means that better prices can be obtained, which helps the enterprise generally and allows it to be more competitive in a largely foreign-based market. - Prolonging the season also makes the best use of expensive plant and machinery. It also levels out the labour profile during the year and provides a higher degree of continuity to employment. - It is anticipated that the traffic to the site will be tractors and trailers on an infrequent basis, collecting and delivering plants and produce and travelling back to the main yard at Moss Lane. - There will be no HGV's using the site and the traffic generated will not be any more than if the field was subject to more traditionally intensive cropping. - Windbreaks are required to protect the glass and are normally insisted upon by insurance companies. - The creation of an irrigation pit is sound water management practice. The pit stores water through the winter for use during the summer.

- The proposed glasshouse is away from residential properties. It adjoins Wood End Nursery, which provides a backdrop of a range of buildings, which assists in assimilating the proposal into the landscape.

8.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING / DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

8.1 The application is for the erection of a glasshouse measuring approximately 180 metres by 100 metres (1.8 hectares) in 6.4 metre bays and measuring 3.8 metres to eaves and 4.3 metres to the ridge; a windbreak along the southern boundary of the glasshouses; an irrigation pit to hold rain water measuring approximately 30 metres by 250 metres and projecting 1 metre above the surrounding ground level and a concrete hardstanding located at the western end of the glasshouses that measures approximately 100 metres in length and 20 metres in width, narrowing to 10 metres at its southern end. The glass housing is intended to be utilised for growing curly lettuce for harvesting outside of the typical growing season.

8.2 The application site is presently an open field located on the east side of Bolton's Cop. There is scattered development to the north of the application site on the east side on the lane and woodland on the western side of the lane again to the north of the application site. The site is approximately 800 metres from the eastern extent of the settlement of Banks in an area, which is defined as washed over Green Belt in both the adopted and Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plans.

8.3 Policies GB.1, GB.4, AG.3, T.2 and P.6 of the adopted plan and Polices DS2, GD1 and EN10 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan are relevant to the consideration of this application. Both the policies in the adopted plan (GB.1 and GB.4) and those in the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Plan (DS2 and GD1) allow for the erection of new agricultural buildings in the Green Belt provided that the building can be justified and its siting and design are acceptable. Policy AG.3 of the adopted plan requires the design of agricultural buildings should relate well to existing buildings and the area generally and that buildings should be located so as not to have any significant visual impacts or cause any adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

8.4 The County Land Agent is satisfied that the there is a need for the glasshouses of the size proposed and considers the siting to be acceptable from an operational point of view.

8.5 Whilst the development will undoubtedly be visible from Boundary Lane to the south and east it will be viewed as part of a cluster of development along Bolton's Cop and therefore its visual impact on the area and the openness of the Green Belt will be limited. The buildings are of a traditional structure common in agricultural areas and so are considered to comply with the requirements of Policies GB.4 and AG.3 of the adopted plan and GD1 of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan. The development will be screened from the only nearby property (Wood End Nurseries) by existing boundary vegetation. There are no other properties in the vicinity of the application site to be adversely affected by the development. The irrigation pond is proposed to be 1 metre above the surrounding ground level, which it is considered will not be unduly prominent in this location, as it will be partly screened by the glasshouses. In addition it will be no higher than the surrounding roads, which are raised above the level of the fields. Similarly the hardstanding will not be unduly prominent because it is a relatively narrow strip along the Bolton's Cop frontage of the site and will be partially screened by the glasshouses.

8.6 The County Surveyor considers that the revised position of the access is acceptable subject to suitable conditions being imposed to maintain visibility along the site frontage, require the existing access to be blocked up and the hardsurfacing of the new access in order to prevent loose material being deposited on the highway.

8.7 The Environment Agency have indicated that due to the proximity of the irrigation pit to the edge of the flood risk area and the isolation of the site any displacement of flood waters would not detrimentally affect adjacent properties and so it is considered that the proposal would not exacerbate the risk of flooding elsewhere. Furthermore the distance between the adjacent ditch is considered to be great enough to be ensure that the irrigation pit will not weaken the structure of the ditch. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of Policy P.6 of the adopted plan and Policy EN10 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan.

8.8 Whilst the Council's Environmental Health Officer initially expressed concerns about the proximity of the glasshouses to the residential property at Wood End Nurseries she is now satisfied that noise levels from any heaters or other fixed plant will not will not be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring property. It is considered that these issues could be adequately controlled by conditions restricting the hours of operation of the business and the levels of noise at the boundaries of the site.

8.9 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and accords with the provisions of policies GB.1, GB.4, AG.3, T.2 and P.6 of the West Lancashire District Local Plan and policies DS2, GD1 and EN10 of the Re- Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan.

9.0 RECOMMENDATION

9.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

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 references Drg no. 05/151/01 received by the LPA on 30th March 2006; Drg no. 05/151/02 received by the LPA on 26th August 2005; Drg no. 05/151/02B received by the LPA on 30th March 2006; Drg no. 05/151/03 received by the LPA on 26th August 2005 and Drg no. 05/151/04 received by the LPA on the 30th March 2006. 3. Prior to the commencement of the development, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local 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 Local Planning Authority. 4. The glasshouses shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the operation of the holding on which they are located. 5. The level of noise emitted from heaters and other fixed plant, shall not exceed

32 d/B(A) LAeq,5 min between 23.00 and 0700 hours on any day as measured or calculated at the boundary of any nearby residential dwelling. 6. Notwithstanding the details shown on Drg no.05/151/02B the access shall be a maximum of 10 metres in width and any gate provided shall be set back not less than 5 metres from the carriageway of the highway and shall open away therefrom. 7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development and General Development Procedure) Orders 1995 or any subsequent Orders or statutory provision re-enacting the provisions of these Orders there shall not at any time in connection with the development hereby permitted be erected or planted, or allowed to remain, upon the land hereinafter defined, any building, wall, fence, hedge, tree, shrub, container, vehicle, kiosk or any other object. The visibility splay affected by this condition shall be that part of the site in front of a line drawn from a point 4.5 metres along the centre line of the proposed access to the site from the continuation of the nearer edge of the carriageway of Boltons Cop to points measured 120 metres in each direction along the nearer edge of the carriageway of Boltons Cop, from the centre line of the proposed access, and shall be constructed and maintained at footway/verge level in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 8. The existing access to Boltons Cop shall be permanently and effectively closed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the use.

9. That part of the access extending from the kerb line/edge of the carriageway for a minimum distance of 5 metres into the site shall be hard surfaced in a permanent construction to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, before the access is used for vehicular purposes.

Reasons

1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policies GB.1, GB.4 and AG.3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 3. To assimilate the proposed development into its surroundings and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policies GB.4 and AG.3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 4. In order to avoid conflict with the Local Planning Authority's policy of strict control of development in the Green Belt and to ensure compliance with Policy GB.1 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 5. To safeguard the amenity of adjacent properties and the area generally and so comply with the provisions of Policy AG.3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 6. To permit vehicles to pull clear of the carriageway when entering the site and to assist visibility and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy T.2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 7. To ensure adequate visibility for the drivers of vehicles entering and leaving the site and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy T.2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 8. To safeguard the safety and interests of the users of the highway and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy T.2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 9. To prevent loose surface material from being carried on to the public highway thus causing a potential source of danger to other road users and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy T.2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

Reason for Approval

GB.1 Control over Development in the Green Belt GB.4 Design and Location of Acceptable Development in the Green Belt AG.3 Design of Agricultural Buildings T.2 Road Traffic and Development P.6 Development in Areas of Flood Risk

No. 7 APPLICATION No. 8/2006/0097 LOCATION Greaves Hall,Greaves Hall Avenue,Banks PROPOSAL Listed Building Consent - Demolition of mansion house. APPLICANT WS Lamm Investments Ltd WARD North Meols PARISH North Meols 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 22 MAR 2006

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 8/2002/1067 APPROVED (04.09.03) Listed Building Consent - Refurbishment to Greaves Hall to form 21 Apartments.

8/2002/1066 APPROVED (18.10.04) Refurbishment/alterations to Greaves Hall to form 21 apartments; erection of 12 mews type houses with courtyard and parking facilities; erection of barn type building to be used for parking of cars and bicycle storage; provision of parking areas and landscaping. 8/99/0911 REFUSED (07.05.97) Listed Building Consent - Demolition of Mansion.

3.0. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

3.1 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (02.02.06) - The demolition of this building is fully supported as the building has become a danger and a source of nuisance to the local community. However it should be noted that the site is presently contaminated by a form of asbestos used for lagging the under floor pipe work. It is recommended that all material be disposed of in accordance with current legal requirements.

3.2 BUILDING CONTROL MANAGER (30.03.06) - The building has been subject to acts of vandalism including arson since 1998. The current and previous owners have made no attempt to protect, secure or repair the property. The Building Control Section have repeatedly arranged for the building to be secured and have also arranged for demolition of sections of the building that have been seriously affected by fire damage. All works have been carried out under powers contained in the Building Act 1984. Due to the condition it is considered highly unlikely that renovation of the remaining section of the building would be financially viable. Furthermore due to malicious damage and exposure to the elements many parts of the inside of the building are now in an extremely dilapidated condition. It is therefore considered unsafe to enter the building.

3.3 ENGLISH HERITAGE (06.04.06) - It is recommended that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

3.4 ENGLISH NATURE (23.03.06) - In the absence of any survey or data search in relation data protected species accompanying the application English Nature objects to the proposed demolition.

3.5 MERSEYSIDE & WEST LANCASHIRE BAT GROUP (03.02.06) - Greaves Hall has contained a roost for Brown Long Eared Bats over many years. Before a structure that is known to contain a bat roost (whether bats are present or not) is demolished there will be a requirement for a DEFRA licence to be in place. Before the application is determined all relevant information including an up to date assessment/inspection should be provided. The assessment should include the three tests that are required to satisfy the Habitat Regulations 1994. This information is required where a European Protected Species may be affected.

3.6 COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY (13.03.06) - This is the fourth application for the site. Three have been for the total demolition and one for refurbishment. As has been indicated previously it is considered that adequate justification has not been put forward or that the steps in paragraphs 3.17 and 3.19 of PPG15 have been followed. Therefore the proposal is objected to.

3.7 THE VICTORIAN SOCIETY (28.02.06) - The application is objected to on the grounds that it does not satisfy the criteria laid out in paragraphs 3.16 to 3.19 of PPG15, relating to the demolition of listed buildings.

Further information in line with the requirements of paragraphs 3.16 to 3.19 should be submitted in order to allow proper assessment of the application.

3.8 ANCIENT MONUMENTS SOCIETY (27.02.06) - Greaves Hall was built about 1895 -1900 for Thomas Talbot Scarisbrick (Mayor of Southport in 1902 and created baronet in 1909), after his marriage in 1895 to Josephine Chamberlain of Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

It is a pity that the documents did not include a clearer explanation of why demolition is necessary. Total demolitions of listed buildings are fortunately now quite rare. PPG15 sets out clear criteria, which must be met before consent can be granted. That said it is known that Greaves Hall is in a parlous state and that the development of the adjoining former hospital land has not been linked to the repair of the historic fabric of the hall as might have been expected. A fuller justification statement, addressing the PPG15 criteria should preferably be provided but the view of the Council's Conservation Officer is noted.

3.9 WEST LANCASHIRE CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (23.02.06) - The panel recommends refusal of the application on the grounds that no other decision is possible because no redevelopment plan has been put forward in conjunction with the application for demolition. Permission for demolition should only be granted if a suitable plan for redevelopment is proposed.

3.10 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (Archaeology) (21.02.06) - No comments to make.

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 There have been two letters received making the following comments on the application :

- The application for the demolition of the hall is supported as it is in a dangerous condition. - It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt. - The redevelopment of the site is a priority to improve safety and security for children attending the nearby school.

- Redevelopment of the area will not only improve the environment but will also stimulate the village economy.

5.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL

5.1 TARLETON P.C. - No comments received to date.

6.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

6.1 The applicant has submitted a supporting statement, a report estimating the cost of repairs to the exterior of the building that was prepared in August 2004 and a recent report from a firm of structural engineers. The supporting statement can be summaries as follows :

- The building as it now stands is in a dangerous structure with its north- easterly and south-easterly wing totally destroyed and the remainder of the building in a perilous state close to collapse. - It has been recognised that a major impediment to the redevelopment of the site as a whole has been the number of owners who have each controlled a portion of the site and whose co-operation to allow for a comprehensive redevelopment has not been apparent. - The applicant, WS Lamm Investments Ltd, has recently been able to acquire all of those areas of land including the Mansion House building and the surrounding sites. This has put the company in the position where it is able to promote a comprehensive redevelopment of the whole of this part of the Greaves Hall site. Unfortunately, such a redevelopment could not incorporate the reinstatement of The Mansion House due to its very advanced state of decay. - The report of the assessment of cost involved in reinstating the shell of the building, prepared in 2004 was prepared at the a time when the reinstatement of the two wings were still possible. - The report indicated that the reinstatement amounted to approximately £102,000 per apartment based on the building being converted into 21 apartments. - The above costs referred to works to repair the shell of the building only and the cost of complete refurbishment would be considerably more. At the time the report was produced the value of a complete two-bedroom apartment was estimated at £150,000. On that basis it was concluded that even when the building was capable of renovation such a proposal could not be regarded as economically viable. - Taking into account the deterioration since then it is not possible to suggest that the building could be reinstated economically. - Whilst the above figures assume no grant availability, it is clear that even if grant aid were available there would still be a very considerable shortfall. - Policy EN5 requires it to be demonstrated that it is not economically viable to retain the building and that all reasonable efforts have been made without success to continue the present use or find a suitable alternative use of the building. This is implicit in the submitted figures, as the present use is nil, whilst the most realistic alternative use would be residential redevelopment, which is not a practical alternative. - The removal of the building will inevitably lead to the a wholesale redevelopment of the site which would improve the immediate environment and allow for the redevelopment of the site for employment purposes which would assist in the economic regeneration of the area as a whole.

6.2 The report from the structural engineers was based on a site inspection undertaken on the 7th March 2006 and can be summarised as follows : - The building was examined 18 months ago and it is apparent that the building has deteriorated extensively over the intervening months. - Whilst it is possible to save the front elevation of the building, the timber elements would need to be fully replaced and the render fully removed, which would leave a masonry wall of considerable age and questionable quality. - The rear wall has no merit structurally. - Whilst internal inspection was not possible from what could be seen of the floors and ceilings they are in a very poor state having suffered from the weather, partial collapses and lack of maintenance. It is considered that none of the original floor or roof structures could be kept. - There is no merit in maintaining the front mock Tudor façade as ultimately all elements making up the frontage will need to be replaced if its long-term integrity is to be guaranteed. - Given the degree of degradation of the building and the risks to operatives that will need to undertake stripping out and localised demolition it is recommended that wholesale demolition would be the safest and most appropriate action.

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING / DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

7.1 The application seeks Listed Building Consent to demolish Greaves Hall Mansion, a Grade II Listed Building, situated off Greaves Hall Avenue in Banks. The building has been vacant since 1994 and up until this time had been used in connection with Greaves Hall Hospital since the 1950's. An application was made in 1999 (8/99/0911) to demolish the building but this was refused because at the time the building was considered to be structurally sound at the time and it had not been demonstrated that all reasonable efforts had been made to find alternative uses.

7.2 Greaves Hall Mansion was built in 1900 as a Country House and was listed in 1997. The elevations of the two-storey building comprise a mix of timber framing and brickwork and the building has a tiled roof. It is of Tudor revival style, with multiple gables and patterned timber framing. It has been designed on a large scale, and uses an asymmetrical composition of gables, chimneys and oriels to achieve a picturesque outline. The architect is unknown. The building has been subject to deterioration since becoming vacant and as a result of fire and vandalism, has lost the end of its south wing and the whole of the eastern wing. In addition the rear part of the roof is missing and virtually all of the windows.

7.3 The proposal to demolish Greaves Hall Mansion must be assessed against Government advice contained in PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment and against Policy LB.5 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy EN5 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan. Policy LB.5 states that the demolition of Listed Buildings will not be recommended to the Secretary of State unless there is clear and convincing evidence that all reasonable efforts have been made to sustain existing uses or find viable new uses and these attempts have failed; preservation in some form of charitable or community ownership is not possible; or redevelopment would produce substantial benefits for the community which would decisively outweigh the loss resulting from demolition. Policy EN5 has similar criteria but also states that an assessment should be provided showing that it is not economically viable to retain the building. These policies reflect the advice given in PPG15, which adds that consent for demolition will not be granted simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive to the developer than repair and re-use.

7.4 The applicant's submission refers to an economic assessment undertaken in 2004 in respect of the costs of reinstating the building at that time and a recent structural assessment of the building undertaken in March of this year. It is contended that the costs of renovating the building at that time of the assessment (August 2004) were prohibitive and because the condition of the building has deteriorated to such an extent since that time it is clearly not economically viable to renovate the building now.

7.5 A previous application (99/0911) for the demolition of the building was refused in March 2000 because the Council were not convinced that all reasonable efforts had been made to find viable new uses or that some form of charitable or community ownership was not possible. Whilst there is evidence of attempts to find alternative uses since then, in that there were applications for planning and Listed Building consent approved in 2002 for the conversion of the building into 21 apartments and enabling development of 12 mews houses there is no evidence of any attempts to seek any form of charitable or community ownership. In addition the applicant's statement indicates that whilst the report suggests that the refurbishment of the building is not economically viable that no account has been taken of grant availability.

7.6 Whilst the written justification submitted by the applicant is rather weak the view of the Councils Conservation, Building Control and Environmental Health Officers need to be taken into account. The building is now considered to be in extremely dilapidated condition, is not safe to enter and has become a danger and a nuisance to the local community.

7.7 The building has been vacant since 1997 and has suffered a number of major fires, the last being in July 2004. As a result of the fire damage, work has had to take place, by the Council, to try and make the remaining parts of the building safe. Substantial parts of the building have had to be demolished as a result. Consequently the planning permission to convert and refurbish the building into apartments can now no longer be implemented, as it is considered that the extent of the work required to implement any repair would in effect entail complete reconstruction of the building. The heritage value of such would be limited.

7.8 Given this situation the value of Greaves Hall, as a listed building, is significantly compromised to the extent that it is considered that the building no longer warrants its listed status and opposing its demolition would be futile.

7.9 The English Nature have objected to the proposed demolition because no up to date survey has been undertaken of the building, which is known to be a roost for Brown long Eared Bats, which are a protected Species. However it is not possible to enter the building in order to undertake such a survey. In any event the developer will not be able to undertake any works without a licence from DEFRA, irrespective of any planning permission/listed building consent.

7.10 Local Planning Authorities are advised in PPG15 in cases of demolition whether it would be appropriate to make it a condition of consent that applicants arrange suitable programmes of recording the important features of a building. This is not considered practical in this instance. However a note is proposed to draw the applicant's attention to the need to give English Heritage at least one months notice for this purpose.

7.11 In conclusion, therefore I consider that the proposal does not contravene the provisions of Policy LB.5 of the adopted plan and Policy EN5 of the Re- Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 That delegated authority to grant listed building permission to the Executive Manager Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to the application not being called in by the Secretary of State.

8.2 That Listed Building Consent be GRANTED subject to the following condition:

Conditions

1. The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the consent is granted.

2. All the materials arising from the demolition shall be removed from the site and the site secured in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within one month of the demolition of the building. The method of securing the site shall be retained in place thereafter or until such time as the site is redeveloped.

Reasons

1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 2. In the interests of visual amenity of adjacent properties and the area generally and public safety so as to comply with the provisions of Policy P.1 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

Reason for Approval

LB.5 - Demolition of Listed Buildings

together with Supplementary Planning Guidance and all relevant material considerations. Whilst the Local Planning Authority recognises that the proposal does not fully comply with Policy LB.5 of the West Lancashire Local Plan it feels that special circumstances exist, namely that the value of Greaves Hall, as a listed building, is significantly compromised to the extent that it is considered that the building no longer warrants its listed status and opposing its demolition would be futile. In addition the building is considered to be a danger to the local community. It is considered that these special circumstances justify approval of the application as set out in the Officer's report. This report can be viewed or a copy provided on request to the Local Planning Authority. ------

No. 8 APPLICATION No. 8/2006/0336 LOCATION Round O Quarry,Cobbs Brow Lane,Newburgh PROPOSAL County Matter - Development of an aggregates recycling facility within curtilage of existing quarry. APPLICANT Mainsprint Ltd WARD Newburgh PARISH Newburgh 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 15 MAY 2006

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

8/98/0973 GRANTED 04.10.01 Initial Review of old mineral planning permissions under the Environmental Act 1995 Determination of Conditions.

3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

3.1 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (08.05.06) - No Objections in principle. The applicants state that the facility should be able to be operated within the same constraints of the planning consent for the current operation at the site. Consider it appropriate to attach similar conditions to this operation as is attached to the extant planning permission so that in effect there is no greater noise or vehicle movements than currently permitted. Similar dust control measures should be put in place.

4.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL

4.1 NEWBURGH PARISH COUNCIL (28.04.06) - No Objections; There are some concerns which could be dealt with as conditions;

- Volume of traffic - Infill & Restoration - Vehicle Routing - Road Debris

5.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

5.1 The applicant has submitted a lengthy supporting statement with the application. This states that the applicant has an existing market in handling construction and demolition waste from the current business operations.

5.2 Brief Summary of supporting statement:

- The development will ensure that waste that would otherwise go to landfill will be recycled. The facility would ensure the future appropriate treatment of construction and demolition waste in accordance with recommended guidance at National, Regional and Local levels. - The facility will be well screened within an existing area of Round 'O' Quarry - The existing highway network is capable of meeting traffic levels arising from the proposed development; these will not represent an increase. - The site will be progressively restored to an agricultural and amenity after use in accordance with the sites approved restoration plan. - This application complies with policy at National, Regional and Local levels.

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

6.1 This application is a County Matter however I have placed it on your agenda due to the nature of the site and the issues involved.

6.2 Round 'O' Quarry is located approximately 2.75km north of Skelmersdale town centre and 1km south of the village of Newburgh and is situated within the Green Belt. The quarry is bounded to the southeast and east by Cobbs Brow Lane, to the north and west by open farmland and to the south by Green Lane, an un-surfaced agricultural track. The main access into the quarry is immediately off Cobbs Brow Lane. The application site is located close to and immediately north of the main internal access road off the site entrance. The site is well screened by the existing screening bunds established on the periphery of the site and natural vegetation and woodland densely cover these bunds.

6.3 The site is located within Green Belt as defined by both the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan. As a result policies GB.1, GB.2 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan together with policy DS.2 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan apply. This application seeks permission for the establishment of a recycling Facility to enable the production of secondary and recycled aggregate and other products from imported construction and demolition waste. The materials brought into the site would be inert, similar to that which is already land filled at the site.

6.4 All vehicles importing materials into the site, whether for disposal or recycling, are required by the site's extant waste management licence, to stop at the main site offices where the necessary paperwork is checked by the site operative. This ensures that only wastes permitted to be used on site are accepted.

6.5 Once accepted, vehicles will be directed either to the recycling or landfill facility. At the recycling facility, the imported materials will be stockpiled in designated areas prior to being processed by the crushing and screening plant. It is proposed that the recycling plant will initially comprise the following equipment, although additional plant may be utilised to cater for an increased demand in the products produced, or the range of recycled products needs to be extended :

- a mobile crusher - Extec C12 or similar - a mobile screener - Powerscreen 'Warrior 1200' or similar - a Loading shovel - two 20 tonne excavators

6.6 Once processed the recycled products i.e. secondary aggregates, soils etc will be stored in separate areas accoding to their finished grading. Given the location of the proposed facility and the effectiveness of the existing peripheral screening, the heights of the stockpiles can be a maximum of 5 metres. In the case of recovered soils, the stockpile will not exceed 2 metres, as storage of such materials above this height has a detrimental effect on the structure of the product.

6.7 Fines and other non-product materials of an inert nature produced as part of the recycling operations and which are unsuitable for other uses will be deposited within the quarry void to be used as part of the sites infilling operations. Should any waste material be found not to conform with that which it is permitted to be handled at any stage during the recycling operations, then it will be separately stored before being removed off site to an appropriate licensed facility.

6.8 The main issues for consideration in respect of this application is the level of vehicle movements and impact on the amenity of local residents. 6.9 Whilst the proposed facility would be capable of handling some 300,000 tonnes per annum of construction and demolition waste, it is the current operator's intention to only import and recycle up to 150,000 tonnes per annum.

6.10 The site's extant planning permission (for mineral extraction and the subsequent infilling of the void) limits the numbers of heavy goods vehicles leaving the site on any single day to 200. These vehicles have historically combined the exportation of extracted minerals from the site with the importation of suitable waste on their return for the purpose of the site's restoration.

6.11 Under the terms of the extant planning permission, mineral extraction at the site must cease by the 31st March 2006. It is therefore proposed that a significant percentage of the outgoing vehicles, formerly used to export extracted minerals from the site, will now transport recycled products from the site. Similarly, a percentage of the vehicles that already imported inert waste into the site for infilling the void created by the quarrying operations, will use the recycling facility. Not all HGVs entering the site will need to use the recycling facility.

6.12 Given the above I do not consider that the proposed operation will have a significant impact on vehicle movements to and from the site.

6.13 The current permitted hours of operation at Round 'O' Quarry are 0730 to 1830 Monday to Friday and 0730 to 1300 on Saturday. It is not proposed to amend these operating hours and therefore the proposed recycling facility will operate in accordance with these existing hours of operation.

6.14 As the site remains relatively isolated with the nearest residential property being located some 230m from the quarry, I do not consider that there would be a significant adverse impact on the amenity of residents through noise from the site. The control of noise and dust to safeguard the amenity of local residents, adjacent properties and landowners can be addressed with planning conditions to ensure that these are kept to acceptable levels.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That West Lancashire District Council raise NO OBJECTION to the application but would suggest the imposition of the following conditions :

Conditions

1. No waste other than inert waste shall be recycled at the site.

2. The use hereby permitted shall only take place between the hours of 07.30 and 18.30 Mondays to Fridays and between the hours of 07.30 and 13.00 on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays.

3. No more than 200 heavy goods vehicles, shall leave the site on any 1 day during Mondays to Fridays, inclusive and no more than 100 on Saturdays during the hours permitted. No vehicles shall enter or leave the site on Sundays or Public Holidays.

4. All plant, equipment and other machinery used in connection with the operation and maintenance of the site shall be equipped with effective silencing equipment or sound proofing equipment to the standard of design set out in the manufactures specification and shall be maintained in accordance with that specification at all times throughout the development.

5. A scheme and programme for noise monitoring at the site shall be submitted to and agreed with Lancashire County Council.

6. A scheme and programme of the measures for the monitoring and suppression of dust shall be submitted to and agreed with Lancashire County Council.

No. 9 APPLICATION No. 8/2006/0063 LOCATION New Bridge Farm,Stopgate Lane,Simonswood PROPOSAL Formation of two fishing lakes and associated landscaping. Provision of new access road and car park. Demolition of existing barn and replacement building to provide storage, ticket sales and toilet facilities. APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Fletcher WARD Bickerstaffe PARISH Simonswood 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 13 MAR 2006

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 8/99/0949 APPROVED.17.01.2000. Retention of poultry/garden shed.

2.2 8/97/0600 REFUSED. 26.11.97 Refurbishment and conversion of disused farmhouse to residential use; alterations to existing sty to form garage. Appeal dismissed 14.07.97

2.3 8/95/1038 APPROVED. 29.02.96. Conversion of disused barn to provide one two storey dwelling.

3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

3.1 LOCAL ACCESS GROUP. Access Matters (03.02.06) - Comments with respect to accessibility of the proposals.

3.2 UNITED UTILITIES (09.02.06) - No objections subject to separate foul and surface water drainage systems and highlight close proximity of apparatus.

3.3 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (06.02.06) - No comments

3.4 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (Archaeology) (26.04.06) - The building for demolition appears on OS maps from 1846 and therefore a condition seeking a programme of building recording and analysis is sought.

3.5 LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (Highways) (26.01.06) - Objects until further information provided.

3.6 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (10.02.06) - Objects on the basis no flood risk assessment has been provided.

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Three letters received expressing the following concerns :

- Proposals transgress the line of an existing sewer. - No security fence proposed to the eastern extent of the site. - Proposal will generate additional traffic on unsuitable road. - To detriment of highway safety. - Inappropriate development for locality. - Proposal will attract people from outside the area including yob element. - Concerns in relation to vandalism, arson and crop theft.

5.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL

5.1 SIMONSWOOD PARISH COUNCIL (06.02.06) - no objection in principle but concern expressed over impact on nearby caravan residences, litter generation, access and safe operation of the site - e.g. provision of life belts etc.

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

6.1 The application relates to an area of approximately 1.4 Ha. of open agricultural land situated to the eastern side of Stopgate Lane and directly south of Simonswood Brook within the Green Belt. A small residential caravan park lies immediately east of the site and open fields to all other sides. Drapers reclamation site lies approx. 275 m to the south. The existing access to the site is via a small track off Stopgate Lane where it bends northwards when travelling from the Tower Hill end; the track is used by the applicant for residential purposes and occupiers of the caravan site. The access to Draper's site lies in close proximity. The site incorporates a dilapidated former farm house in brick and slate and areas of hardstanding to its northern fringe where agricultural buildings once stood. The area is generally low-lying land with open views with the exception of developments on Simonswood Industrial Estate. The site levels fall from south to north by approx. 3 m.

6.2 The proposals include :

- The formation of two fishing lakes providing a total of approx. 6,000 m2 lake area; both lakes feature central islands and have a maximum 3 metre depth graded up to shallower external fringes. The lakes will accommodate 70 pegs (fishing stations) in total. - The formation of a 4.5 m wide, 150 metre long track close to the western (Stopgate Lane) boundary. The proposed gravel track runs from the existing track at a point approx. 3.5 m from where it meets Stopgate Lane. The track is required to access the proposed car park approx. 35 x 15 metres that will accommodate up to 24 vehicles, including two disabled bays. - Demolition of the existing dilapidated two storey building (approx. 13.2 x 6.4 x 6.0 (h) metres) and provision of a new single storey building approx. 8.0 x 6.0 m with a pitched roof over to 4.2 m in reclaimed materials to provide storage in conjunction with the maintenance of the site, brew area, ticket sales and wc provision. - Landscaping of the site including a new hawthorn hedge to the Stopgate Lane frontage, planting of the proposed islands and intermittent planting about the site. - It is proposed to operate the facility for general public use between dawn and dusk. - No mounding is proposed on the site; excavated materials will be appropriately be removed from the site.

6.3 Policies GB.1 'Control Over Development in the Green Belt', GB.2 'Engineering Operations and Changes of Use of Land in the Green Belt', P.7 'Development which could Increase Flood Risk' and LE.15 'Development of Outdoor Sport and Recreation Facilities' of the adopted Local Plan and Policies DS2 'Protecting the Green Belt' and SC1 'Sports, recreational, Leisure and Cultural Facilities' of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan, are relevant in consideration of this application.

6.4 The principle of development of outdoor leisure facilities in the Green Belt is accepted under Policies GB.1 and DS2 of the respective plans which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the reasons of including land within it.

6.5 The formation of the lakes and planting are considered appropriate and acceptable with no significant detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt nor conflicting with any of the purposes of including land within it. Indeed, it is likely that some wildlife benefit will accrue and the provision of a hawthorn hedge to the road frontage improve the general appearance of the area.

6.6 The formation of the track and hardstanding are new developments required in conjunction with the use of the lakes. The siting of the parking area is on part of the field that has previously accommodated buildings and sheds, evidence of which still remain. On this basis, and given the proposed gravel finish, I do not consider any significant increased detrimental impact on the openness or visual amenity of the Green Belt will result.

6.7 Policy GB.1 relating to Control over Development in the Green Belt permits 'essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation'. I consider the extent of the proposed track to be significant, however, the proposed line of the track parallel and in close proximity to the line of Stopgate Lane, will minimise any visual intrusion in the landscape; this intrusion will be particularly limited on maturity of the proposed roadside hedging. I do not consider use of the existing track to be appropriate due to the proximity of the residential units on the adjacent site.

6.8 Similarly, I consider the proposed building approx. 8.0 x 6.0 m with a pitched roof over to 4.2 m, in providing WC, ticket sales and storage associated with maintenance of the lakes can be accepted as 'essential' facilities for the proposed use of the site. This building will replace the existing larger two storey brick and slate building, resulting in a nett benefit to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt. A condition seeking screen landscaping about the building will be imposed to ensure minimum impact on the visual amenity of the locality.

6.9 The site lies within an identified flood risk area. The Environment Agency has objected to the proposals on the basis of the lack of submission of a flood risk assessment - specifically with respect to the dumping of excavated material within the identified flood zone thereby reducing the capacity of the land to store floodwaters resulting in a knock-on effect outside the application site. The applicant has submitted such a statement that identifies no significant flooding has occurred in the vicinity over a significant period; more importantly, the applicant has amended the proposal to remove all excavated material from the site and exclude any landscape mounding. This will ensure that the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere, indeed some additional storage capacity will result.

6.10 The proposed access lies off an existing track located on the outside of a bend on Stopgate Lane, visibility distances are demonstrated to be in the order of 370 m to the west and 202 m to the north. The latter distance is short of the standard requirement of 215 metres however traffic speeds in the locality are noted to be less than than the speed limit due to the bend in the road. It is also noted that the nearby access to the Draper's site that accommodates significantly larger vehicles and has been accepted by the Highway Authority as acceptable in the past. The proposed access also provides good intervisibility between vehicles on the proposed track, existing track, Drapers access and Stopgate Lane itself. The neighbour observation suggesting the road network in the vicinity of the site would be unsuitable for the proposed levels of traffic appears to be unfounded.

6.11 Finally, with respect to potential impacts on the nearby residential caravan site and surrounding land uses, given the scale of the proposal, anticipated level of use and the focus of activity - parking and facilities, to the northern part of the site I do not consider the proposal would cause any significant loss of amenity in the locality. Concern has been expressed relating to the potential and fear of crime and attraction of undesirable elements to the area resulting from the proposed use of the site, however, there is no evidence to suggest the two would be in any way linked.

6.12 In summary, I consider that the proposals for the formation of the lakes, planting, car park, access track and building are acceptable and comply with current planning policy and therefore should be approved.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 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: Location plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 16 Nov. 2005 Drawing reference JF 01 rev. a received by the Local Planning Authority on 09 Jan 2006. Drawing reference JF 02 rev. a received by the Local Planning Authority on 03 March 2006. Drawing reference JF 03 received by the Local Planning Authority on 03 March 2006. Drawing reference JF 04 received by the Local Planning Authority on 03 March 2006.

Drawing reference JF 06 received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 April 2006. Drawing reference JF 07 received by the Local Planning Authority on 24 April 2006. Drawing reference JF 08 received by the Local Planning Authority on 24 April 2006. 3. No more than 40 persons shall be permitted to fish from the lakes at any one time. 4. Within 9 months from the date when any part of the development hereby approved is first brought into use the approved landscaping scheme, amended at paragraph 6.1.3 and in accordance with the schedule and indicative layout received on 10.01.06, shall be carried out. All 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). 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 Local Planning Authority. 5. Prior to the commencement of the development, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority for the parking areas and surrounding the toilet/office building. 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 Local Planning Authority. 6. Prior to the commencement of development a management plan covering a period of seven years for the maintenance of the approved landscaping schemes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the details contained in the approved management plan to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 7. The car park shall be surfaced or paved in materials to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and the car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas marked out in accordance with the approved plan, before the use of the fishing lakes hereby permitted commences. 8. That part of the access extending from the existing track for a minimum distance of 10 metres into the site shall be hard surfaced in a permanent construction to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, before the access is used for vehicular purposes.

9. All material excavated from the site as a result of the formation of the lakes, track and parking area shall be removed from the site to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 10. Prior to the commencement of any building or engineering operations in connection with the construction of the lakes, the existing building and areas of hardstanding on the application site at the time shall be demolished and any materials not required in conjunction with the development hereby approved removed from the site. 11. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved full details and samples of the external brickwork & roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy GB.1 and GB.2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 3. In order to avoid conflict with the Local Planning Authority's policy of strict control of development in the Green Belt and to ensure compliance with Policy GB.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 4. To assimilate the proposed development into its surroundings and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GB.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 5. To assimilate the proposed development into its surroundings and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GB.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 6. To ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GB.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 7. To ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy GB.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 8. To prevent loose surface material from being carried on to the public highway thus causing a potential source of danger to other road users and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy T.2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 9. In order to avoid conflict with the Local Planning Authority's policy of strict control of development in the Green Belt and to ensure compliance with Policies GB.2, P.6 and P.7 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 10. In order to avoid conflict with the Local Planning Authority's policy of strict control of development in the Green Belt and to ensure compliance with Policy GB.2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan. 11. To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory and that the development therefore complies with the provisions of Policy GB.4 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

Reason for Approval

GB.1 Control over Development in the Green Belt GB.2 Engineering Operations and Changes of Use of Land in the Green Belt GB.4 Design and Location of Acceptable Development in the Green Belt AG.4 Agricultural Diversification P.7 Development which could increase Flood Risk LE.15 Development of Outdoor Sport and Recreation Facilities

------

No. 10 APPLICATION No. 8/2005/0393 LOCATION Plot B (Unit 2),Excel Business Park,Statham Road,Skelmersdale PROPOSAL Reserved Matters - Erection of building for B2 and/or B8 purposes with ancillary offices. Formation of vehicle parking areas; creation of access from existing estate road and landscaping. APPLICANT Gazeley Uk Ltd WARD Bickerstaffe PARISH Not Applicable 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 12 DEC 2005

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 8/05/0392 Adjacent Plot D REFUSED 20.04.06. Reserved Matters - Erection of buildings for B2 and /or B8 purposes with ancillary offices, formation of vehicle parking areas, creation of access from existing estate road and landscaping. 8/03/0549 Adjacent Plot - (Comet) APPROVED. 24.07.03. Reserved Matters - Erection of a Regional Distribution warehouse with ancillary offices and parking areas and formation of landscaping mounds. Variation of Condition 5 of planning permission 8/00/0801 to allow the development to be commenced prior to completion of the internal access road and roundabout at Spa Lane; variation of condition 8 of planning permission 8/00/0801 to allow the erection of a building with a maximum height of 16.5 metres; variation of condition 13 of planning permission 8/00/0801 to allow the development 8/02/1269 Adjacent Plot - (Asda) APPROVED. 16.01.03. Reserved Matters - Erection of distribution warehouse with ancillary offices and facilities; erection of service centre for tray washing and recycling; construction of new spine road and associated infrastructure; formation of balancing lagoons and earth mounds; landscaping and variation of Condition 5 (phasing of development and access) and No. 8 (maximum building height) imposed on outline permission 8/00/0801).

to be commenced prior to completion of the planted buffer zone. 8/00/0801 APPROVED. 20.12.02. Outline - Proposed industrial, business and warehousing (B1, B2, B8) development; together with associated access arrangements (inc. roundabout on Spa Lane and off-site improvements at Statham Road/Staveley Road junction); boundary landscaping and green corridor provisions (inc. surface water ponds and cycleway access).

3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

3.1 UNITED UTILITIES (04.05.05) - No objection in principle. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) will not be adopted by United Utilities and will only consider the adoption of surface water drainage to balancing ponds provided certain conditions are met.

3.2 COUNTY SURVEYOR (15.03.06) - Revised application is now acceptable and objections are withdrawn subject to conditions imposed relating to exact position of bus stop relocation, submission of travel plan and highway works to be completed prior to commencement of development. (06.03.06) - Revised application fails to adequately address all above issues and recommend application is resisted. (22.11.05) - Car parking still in excess of guidelines. No details of treatment of footpath junction or cycle track access points. Require Travel Plan, car park access point will create conflict with incoming and outgoing HGV's. Repositioned bus stop further away and less attractive. Request application is resisted. (03.08.05) - Further information required. Travel plans should be submitted, and level of parking too high and a ghost island should be used. Access is proposed at the current bus stop point. Details of cycleway extension to Neverstitch Road required.

(16.05.05) - Requires plan showing access design. A business travel plan is required, along with a public transport contribution of £800 per parking space. Parking is in excess of LCC standards.

3.3 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (24.05.05) - No objection in principle. Surface water attenuation scheme to be agreed. Welcomes a SUDS scheme. Recommends condition to protect Slate Brook during course of construction. Areas containing Japenese Knotweed on the banks of Smithy Brook should be fenced off and a method statement for the control of the species agreed. New planting should use native species of local provenance. No works should be carried out on site during the bird breeding season. Any area of woodland containing Bluebells should be protected.

3.4 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES (08.05.06) - Comments remain broadly the same as in previous response. However, conclusion is made that this is the best layout possible for this size of distribution centre in this location with respect to noise. The recent amendments including proposed mounding and reduction in the level of the building will make marginal improvement to predicted noise levels. Additionally, these predictions are based upon maximums and activities may well produce noise levels lower than the range presented. Therefore, the application is an improvement to the previous application and consider the current application acceptable subject to conditions including noise levels from fixed equipment, the site in general and reversing alarms, site not to be used as a refrigerated product distribution centre and details of lighting be approved. Submission of an Environmental Management Plan also recommended. (28.02.06) - Amended layout and addendum to consultant's noise assessment still raises the above concerns, although the suggested barrier position and height are a significant improvement. The layout is now the best possible for this size of distribution centre in this location, however, the resulting noise levels will still be undesirable. Recommend conditions if approved. (27.01.06) - Additional comments made about submitted noise assessment. Concerns expressed about noise impact. Loading bays, parking bays and a turning circle are in close proximity to residential properties on Slate Lane (less than 100m) and also within sight of properties on Old Engine Lane. There is no proposal for a mound or noise barrier within this area and noise would be generated from vehicle movements. The Consultant has proposed conditions that set a limit on noise levels compared to existing background noise level. Conditions imposed on the two existing units on the XL site relate to the ambient and background noise levels determined prior to the development of the XL site. To allow each subsequent development on the site to be compared to re-assessed background and ambient noise levels will allow the noise levels on the site to be higher with each development which is unacceptable. Residents around the site are used for relatively low ambient and background noise levels and the nature of the use would rise to high levels of night time activities and reversing alarms. Considers the proposed layout would cause detriment to the amenity of the neighbouring residents. Complaints have been received about noise and lighting from the two units currently in operation on the XL site. It is therefore imperative that this unit is designed so that it can be operated without any detriment to residential amenity. An acoustic survey is required. More warehouse units on the XL Business Park could further affect residents on Thanet and Berry Street, who have raised concerns about noise and air quality effects due to increase in HGV movements. No goods vehicles should use Spa Lane. If application is approved, recommend conditions to reduce potential noise disturbance. Furthermore, there may be possible ground contamination and an appropriate investigation should be undertaken. (04.08.05) - Additional comments received about lighting. (25.05.05) - Some concerns about noise impact as unit is in close proximity to residential premises on Slate Lane. Plans show loading bays, HGV parking and turning approximately 90 metres from the boundary of the garden of residential properties.

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Twenty individual letters of objection to the proposals, both in their original form and amended have been received from nearby residents raising the following concerns: (these concerns remain valid for the latest revised scheme)

- height and overall footprint of building too much for this sensitive site - unacceptable impact on adjacent Green Belt - details of public footpath diversion not clear - southern piece of land will not be properly policed as it is outside perimeter fence - the building would be approximately 50m from properties on Old Engine Lane with HGV parking on that side of the plot. - building finishes should be of light grey palette with no signs on Spa Lane or Firswood Road sides. - light pollution. - no need for such high buildings, Asda and Comet don't use all their height. - colour of building not environmentally friendly - disturbance in countryside - increased noise - increased traffic - loss of visual amenity - massive rear elevation will reflect noise from Comet - inadequate landscaping - numbers of jobs created is unsubstantiated - increased pollution - loss of security - acoustic fencing an eyesore - overbearing impact on residential properties - increased HGV parking on surrounding roads with refrigerator units' engines running - this area of South Lathom should be protected - unnecessary development as there is no shortage of vacant existing buildings in Skelmersdale - loss of wildlife habitat - loss of trees and hedgerows - loss of established TV signals - submitted noise survey inaccurate - increased surface water flooding - sceptical of jobs value of proposal - type of building not in accordance with original intentions for site - eaves height still too high - application should not be accepted after the date for submission of reserved matters expired in December 2005 - Proposed mound will not make any difference.

4.2 South Lathom Residents Association have also objected to the proposed development on the above grounds and the following:

- Plot B is visually prominent and sensitive in terms of the close proximity to residential properties - Increased noise to nearby residents particularly when a recent application by Comet for additional HGV spaces close to the same properties was refused - Increase HGV movements to and from the M58 will increase further than already unacceptable road traffic noise along the route - Unacceptable building colour, parking and HGV's arrangements for outside the site, Section 106 proposals and construction working hours - Only 125 people on current employment register willing to undertake warehouse work and therefore not 800 jobs created - Addition of mounds will have no practical effect on level of noise experienced at two nearest properties - There will be a direct line from the HGV parking spaces and turning area which are unaffected by the changes - Condition 8 of outline planning permission not only restricts ridge height to 15m but also the eaves height to 13m. The proposed parapet height is 14.8m above average ground level - a full 1.8m above the limit - By comparison with the lower levels on the site, the building would be 16.2m to 18.7m high - It would be ironic if this application were allowed having rejected a similar proposed HGV parking extension at Comet - Higher finished floor level than Comet and higher eaves than Comet - Another distribution centre is inappropriate in this location.

4.3 A 20 signatory petition has been received from residents along Skelmersdale Road, Bickerstaffe objecting to the proposal due to the fact that HGV's travelling to and from the existing depots already use Skelmersdale Road as a rat-run causing nuisance to residents by reason of noise, dust and vibration and any further development would exacerbate the problems.

4.4 Eleven individual letters have been received from residents of Thanet, Berry Street, Skelmersdale who object to further development/warehousing on the XL site. They refer to a constant stream of HGV traffic passing Thanet causing pollution, increased noise and vibration since the two units (Asda and Comet) became operational. Further warehousing would exacerbate the already intolerable problem.

5.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL

5.1 N/A

6.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

6.1 The applicant has submitted a noise impact assessment, photo-montages, drainage strategy and lighting plans, landscape principles and tabled a unilateral planning obligation. All of these documents can be seen on the Council's website. The applicant's main points can be summarised as follows:

- confident that major companies can be secured for the sites. - visual impact of building reduced by removing parapet and having low pitched sections to roof. - ridge of adjacent Comet building will be 5.9m higher. - 'fading' blue colour scheme will reduce visual impact. - unilateral planning obligation will ensure no lighting on landscape mounds, no left turn for HGV's to Spa Lane, contracting working hours specified, financial contribution towards off-site noise mitigation measures. - employment created for approximately 200-300 people. - the building will provide a clear internal height of 12m which is established as an industry minimum for modern production and distribution. - In order to reduce the ground level and height above existing ground level of the building on Plot D, the excavated material will be used on Plot B. Considering the development as a whole, the balance between the two building heights is the most appropriate. It would also be more environmentally friendly to move the material only a little way. - eco-initiatives would be built in, such as rooflights, photo voltaic cell panels, solar heated water panels, re-use of 'grey water', pervious paving, recycled or recyclable materials used. - the height to the ridge of 14.95m would be virtually undetectable in the context of other buildings on XL Park. - firmly believe all changes have been made to the building which are reasonably practical whilst maintaining commercial viability of the development.

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

7.1 The Reserved Matters application relates to approximately 6.14 hectares of land at the south east of the XL Business Park. The application site is bounded by Slate Brook with properties along Slate Lane beyond and part of the Comet site to the west, Statham Road and the Asda site to the north, existing industrial premises off Selby Place and Stanford Road to the east and part open countryside with properties beyond on Old Engine Lane/part wooded area with properties beyond on Turnberry to the south. The application site and land to the east and north fall within an Employment Area, whilst the land beyond Slate Brook to the south lies in safeguarded land and the west lies within the Green Belt.

7.2 Policy I.6 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan allows for the principle of developing the land to the west of the Stanley Employment Area for industrial/warehousing purposes, subject to compliance with Policy I.8 (Development Criteria for Business/Industrial Development) and to proposals taking into account the ecological, highway/access and visual characteristics of the site. These policies are re-iterated in Policies DE5 and GD1 of the Re- Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan. Supplementary Planning Guidance has been approved, in consultation with local residents and landowners, to promote the comprehensive redevelopment of the site and was adopted in January 2000. The SPG considers the environmental constraints which exist on the site and provides guidance for developers on such matters as access, landscape, phasing, service infrastructure and other key development requirements.

7.3 Outline planning permission was granted in December 2001 for industrial business and warehousing for all the land identified in the Local Plan. Whilst this permission did not include approval for any buildings, the site was divided into five separate parcels (A-E). Details of the means of access were included in the approved scheme, consisting of a central spine road, between Statham Road (in the Stanley Employment Area) and Spa Lane to the north. The scheme included a green corridor based on State Brook, and extensive areas of perimeter landscaping, particularly adjacent to Firswood Road, Spa Lane and Slate Lane. The outline permission was subject to 25 conditions, some of which required the submission of detailed schemes and programmes, with others requiring the phased implementation of elements of the development. The outline permission was also subject to a Section 106 Agreement which required the phased provision of a commuted sum for a bus shuttle service to Skelmersdale Town Centre; the provision of additional bus stops in the area and the early implementation of perimeter landscaping.

7.4 Two of the sites (A and C) have already been granted detailed planning permission for large distribution warehouses, now constructed and operating as Asda and Comet. The spine road has been completed and mounded areas of landscaping created. A Reserved Matters application was refused at Planning Committee on 20th April 2006 for a large building for B2 and/or B8 purposes on Plot D due to its harmful visual impact upon the surrounding Green Belt area.

7.5 The current application (Plot B) seeks approval for the following:

- a speculative build development for B2 (general industrial) or B8 (distribution/warehouse) use incorporating ancillary office facilities in a building measuring 22,840 sq.m. (224m x 102m) - the height of the building is a maximum of 14.95 metres above existing ground level - incorporated within the building a two-storey office area of 1,000 sq.m. - a gatehouse building measuring 7m x 4m and 3.4m high - access road to serve the development, parking provision for 140 cars and 77 HGV's with HGV turning area

- one balancing pond measuring 100m long x 14m wide as part of a SUDS drainage system - landscaped and mounded area to south of maximum 90m width and 20m wide landscaped area to west - diversion of public footpath 24 - cyclepath along west and southern boundary to connect to existing track.

7.6 The proposals have been examined against the requirements of Policies I.6 and I.8 of the adopted plan and DE5 and GD1 of the draft replacement plan; the Supplementary Guidance (SPG) and the terms of the outline planning permission. In detail, I consider that the provision of a B2/B8 building falls within the type of development promoted by Policy I.6, the SPG and the outline planning permission. Also, a scheme which may provide up to 300 jobs will assist in meeting the objectives of Policy I.6 i.e. the reduction of unemployment levels in Skelmersdale and the promotion of economic development. It will also assist in the regeneration policies for Skelmersdale and be of economic benefit for the District. However, the proposed development is speculative and as such, these job creation figures are approximated.

7.7 Notwithstanding that the proposal is acceptable in principle, I have some concerns regarding the overall scale and height of the building. However, attempts have been made to reduce the height by removing part of the parapet and breaking up the ridge into bays and at its highest point the building is 14.95m above average ground floor level. At this height, the building will have a significant visual impact although the overall height does not now exceed the limit set on the outline planning permission (15 metres). A limit of 13m was set at the outline stage on eaves levels. The type of building proposed does not have eaves as such, but the parapet level on the building would be 14.8m. It is necessary to consider whether or not this size of building on this plot is considered acceptable in terms of its impact upon the surrounding area, having regard to the recently refused planning application on Plot D. (which was a proposed height of 14.2m but was refused for its detrimental impact upon the surrounding Green Belt).

7.8 I consider that it is necessary to compare the height and distance of surrounding properties when determining whether or not this is an acceptable height and size of building. Whereas Plot D has Green Belt on two sides of the boundary and would be highly visible from the surrounding open countryside, the immediately surrounding area around Plot B is quite different. To the north is the Asda building (15m high); to the east is the rest of Stanley Industrial Estate, to part of the west is the adjacent Comet building (between 13.5m and 16.5m high); the remainder (SW) of the site is open countryside allocated as Land Safeguarded for Future Development Needs in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan. The plot is therefore not surrounded by as much open countryside and, when taken in context with the existing developments on the Business Park and the Stanley Industrial Estate I am of the view that it would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. It is also important to assess the visual impact the proposed building will have on surrounding residential properties. The closest residential properties are on Slate Lane and Old Engine Lane. The minimum distance from the proposed building and the garden boundary is 90m with landscaping in between (a significant amount to the south of the building). It is my view that at this distance, there would be no overshadowing or loss of privacy to any surrounding residential properties. Occupiers of properties along Slate Lane and Old Engine Lane would clearly be able to see the building but the substantial area of proposed landscaping to the south / south/west when fully matured would screen the proposed development and provide a buffer between the employment site and the Green Belt/Open Land.

7.9 A detailed noise assessment has been submitted by the applicant which concludes that the proposed development would be comparable or lower than the existing noise climate. Furthermore, as no refrigerated food distribution operation is proposed at the site, there would be less vehicle movements during each hour than there are at the neighbouring Asda site. Concerns have been expressed, notwithstanding this noise assessment, that due to the proximity of residential properties, levels of existing background noise levels would be increased

7.10 I acknowledge that the site has permission in outline for industrial development and is allocated for employment purposes, however, a recent appeal has been dismissed for an HGV parking area at Comet, 60m away from properties in Slate Lane, on the other side of an acoustic fence and a mounded landscaped buffer. The Inspector concluded in her report that Policy I.8 seeks to protect the amenity of nearby residents and the proposed additional HGV parking area at Comet would fail to do this as there is a reasonable likelihood that the proposed parking area would make their living conditions even worse than at present. She also commented that even if 'white noise' in reversing bleepers were used they are still noisy. The nearest residential properties on Slate Lane are 90m away from the proposed HGV parking and turning area on Plot B, there is no building between them but an acoustic fence of 5m is proposed as well as a landscaped mound of 4m above the existing cycleway along the western boundary at its highest point directly behind the proposed HGV parking area. This is an improvement to the previous layout. The question is, whether or not this now means that the proposal is acceptable in terms of noise impact upon nearby residents, notably those at the end of Slate Lane.

7.11 The site is an allocated employment site and there is no doubt that some noise will be generated from the site. It is important, when assessing the proposal, to ensure that the expected noise to be generated does not exceed that which the residents already experience at the site since the construction of the Comet and Asda buildings. In this respect, the acoustic barrier and landscaped mound together with the imposition of strict noise levels, would, in my opinion ensure that the proposed development would not give rise to a significant increase in noise. The Executive Manager of Community Services has already concluded that this is the best layout possible for this size of B8 unit in this location with respect to noise.

7.12 An additional concern is the impact of the proposal upon road traffic noise in the wider residential area. Complaints of increased HGV noise have been received during the last two years along the route between the XL site and the M58, particularly at Thanet. As a result of the complaints, consultants were commissioned to assess existing noise levels, levels before the development of the XL site and predicted future noise levels, at particular noise sensitive points between 'half mile island' (junction with Neverstitch Road and Glenburn Road), and 'daffodil island' (junction with Railway Road and Glenburn Road). The consultant's study concluded that the area already experienced moderate to high levels of noise before the XL development and most of the parts assessed did not experience significant increases since the XL development nor would they should the remaining plots be developed, with the exception of Thanet. In this area, although noise levels were already moderate to high, significant increases in noise had been experienced since the development of the XL site particularly during the evening and night time hours and this would be exacerbated by further development on the site.

7.13 Although the study highlighted a problem of increased road traffic noise during night time hours at Thanet, it must be acknowledged that outline planning permission has been granted for industrial/warehouse development on the XL site with no hours restrictions and that the route along Glenburn road, being a dual carriageway, is specifically routed for HGV traffic going to and from the M58. As such, any application for Reserved Matters cannot realistically be refused an impact of road traffic noise in the wider area.

7.14 The level of parking provision is considered to be acceptable. A Travel Plan has not been submitted with the application; however, the Section 106 Agreement covered by the outline planning permission included a transport subsidy for a shuttle bus service to link the site to the town centre (£25,000 per annum for the first 5 years). Details of a Travel Plan could be sought by condition.

7.15 The re-positioned bus stop would be moved approximately 150m westward and although further from the entrance to Plot B, it would be closer to the Comet site and the same distance as existing from Asda. The final agreed position of the bus stop could be subject to a condition.

7.16 The proposed access has now been altered to provide a separate HGV entrance and staff/visitor car park. This arrangement is now satisfactory. At present, there is an unsatisfactory overspill parking provision on the XL Business Park for waiting HGV's; however, should this application be approved, a condition could be imposed to require an area of overspill parking within the site.

7.17 The proposal involves the diversion of a public footpath currently cutting across the site in east/west direction (FP24). This would be diverted around the southern end of the building and HGV parking area and re-join public footpath 101 and subsequently Footpath 95 along the eastern boundary of the site. A new cyclepath is proposed along the south west boundary to link in with the cyclepath/footpath created on the Comet development and connecting to Neverstitch Road. I have no objection to the footpath diversion and welcome the cycle track provision.

7.18 With regard to drainage matters, the scheme proposes a SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage System) with two balancing lakes to the east of the site. This system will provide adequate surface water attenuation in a sustainable way. Whilst United Utilities will not adopt SUDS the run off will flow to Slate Brook and as such, surface water drainage is dealt with by the Environment Agency, who have no objections.

7.19 Lighting details have been submitted, which include 12, 10metre high columns to the car and lorry parks on the south and east of the site, away from residential properties. 15 wall mounted lights to the south, north and east elevations and 24 lower level wall mounted lights at 4m height to the west elevation. Whilst there is no doubt that this will be an obvious night time sight, provided the lights are well angled and modern fittings used, their glare, light spill and sky glow will be minimised.

7.20 To summarise, I consider that the revised layout, including a reduction in the building to less than 15m above average ground level, revised access arrangements into the site, revised HGV parking / turning area, increased landscaping, mound and acoustic fence to the south west of the site results overall in a much improved scheme to that originally submitted. Provided that suitable conditions are imposed, I am satisfied that the proposal is now acceptable.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 That Reserved Matters be GRANTED subject to the following conditions :

Conditions

1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission.

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: 2158-21RevV received by the Local Planning Authority on 16th March 2006 2158-22RevJ received by the Local Planning Authority on 16th March 2006 SKE2E8 received by the Local Planning Authority on 23rd March 2006 SKE2E9 received by the Local Planning Authority on 23rd March 2006 SKE2E4 received by the Local Planning Authority on 29th March 2006 SKE2E3 received by the Local Planning Authority on 29th March 2006 MCS4790-SK03A received by the Local Planning Authority on 16th March 2006 SKE/2/C/TS6 received by the Local Planning Authority on 6th June 2005 2158-13 received by the Local Planning Authority on 27th June 2005 2158-24 received by the Local Planning Authority on 27th June 2005 2157-100 received by the Local Planning Authority on 27th June 2005 MCS4790-205 received by the Local Planning Authority on 6th June 2005 2158-250 received by the Local Planning Authority on 6th June 2005 2606/X001RevA received by the Local Planning Authority on 16th February 2006 Schedule of Trees adjacent to Construction Works received on 6th June 2005 External Lighting details received on 24th August 2005

3. The roofing material and vertical wall cladding shall be of colours to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. They shall thereafter be maintained in those colours to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

4. The development shall be implemented in strict accordance with the details of levels, including the finished floor levels of the building as indicated on the approved plans.

5. No materials or equipment shall be stored on the site outside the buildings except waste materials which may be kept in bins for removal periodically.

6. All facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and provided within impervious bund walls. Full details of the design of the bunded compound including any pipework, equipment, and drainage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7. Before the development is brought into use that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be laid out, drained and surfaced in a manner to be previously approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

8. Prior to commencement of any part of the development hereby approved, including site clearance, ground preparation, or drainage works, a facility shall be provided by which the wheels of all vehicles leaving the site can be cleaned. The wheels of all vehicles leaving the site during all stages of implementation shall be cleaned so that they do not carry any mud, soil, grit or other such materials onto the public highway.

9. Prior to the commencement of any other work on the site, the earth mounds adjacent to the footway and cycleway to the west and the security fencing shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans .

10. Within 3 months of completion of the earth mounds and the commencement of other work on the site, the approved landscaping scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved plans. All 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). 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 Local Planning Authority.

11. Prior to the commencement of the use of the building, all of the parking facilities (including spaces for disabled drivers) shall be provided in accordance with the approved plan, and all such facilities shall be retained thereafter for the duration of the development.

12. The car park shall be surfaced or paved to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and the car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas marked out in accordance with the approved plan, before the use of the premises hereby permitted becomes operative.

13. Prior to the commencement of the development, a management plan for the routing and timing of all construction traffic during implementation of the development and for the routing within West Lancashire District of all commercial vehicles visiting the site after commencement of use of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; all such traffic visiting the site shall operate in accordance with the approved management plan.

14. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Business Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include a detailed timetable of work, including measures to improve the accessibility of the site by public transport, bicycle and on foot. The approved Travel Plan shall be fully implemented in accordance with the specified timescales.

15. The development shall not be commenced until a scheme for the foul and surface water drainage of the development, including any necessary attenuation measures, has been fully agreed with the relevant statutory body/bodies, and until written evidence of that agreement has been provided to and acknowledged in writing as acceptable by the Local Planning Authority.

16 Prior to commencement of the use hereby approved, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that noise from fixed equipment shall not exceed 5dB(A) below the LA90 background noise level, as reported in the Noise Impact Assessment by Cole Jarman Associates (Report 2004/3160/B/R1) measured or calculated at 1 metre from the nearest façade of any of the nearby residential properties. Any tonal, impulsive or irregular noise shall be subject to a +5dB correction in accordance with BS4142.1997. The agreed scheme shall be implemented thereafter.

17. Noise from fixed equipment shall not exceed 5dB(A) below the LA90 background noise level, as reported in the Noise Impact Assessment by Cole Jarman Associates (Report 2004/3160/B/R1), measured or calculated at 1 metre from the façade of any of the nearby residential properties. Any tonal, impulsive or irregular noise shall be subject to a +5dB correction in accordance with BS4142.1997.

18. Prior to commencement of the use hereby approved, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the level of noise emitted from the premises shall not increase the Laeq,1h ambient noise levels, as reported in the Noise Impact Assessment by Cole Jarman Associates (Report 2004/3160/B/R1), by more than 1dB(A) measured or calculated as LAeq, 1h at any time, at 1 metre from the nearest façade of any of the nearby residential properties. The scheme shall take into account all of the moving noise sources within the premises, shall include a detailed noise mitigation scheme and, if necessary, noise management control measures. The approved scheme shall be implemented thereafter and a report submitted to the Local Planning Authority 1 year after the commencement of the use, reviewing the approved scheme. Should any revisions be identified as necessary following the review, they shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and implemented thereafter.

19. The level of noise emitted from the premises shall not increase the Laeq,1h ambient noise levels, as reported in the Noise Impact Assessment by Cole Jarman Associates (Report 2004/3160/B/R1), by more than 1dB(A) measured or calculated as LAeq, 1h at any time, at 1 metre from the nearest façade of any of the nearby residential properties.

20. Any sound produced by vehicle reversing alarms or indicators, when measured or calculated 1 metre from the nearest façade of any nearby residential premises, shall not exceed 45dB LAMAX at any time.

21. The site shall not be used as a refrigerated product distribution centre.

22 .Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved, a scheme detailing the proposed lighting to be installed at the premises shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All external lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the agreed scheme.

23. Doors to the loading bays shall be kept closed except when a vehicle is docked or the loading bay is awaiting the imminent docking of a waiting vehicle.

24. Prior to the occupation of the building, all of the surface water drainage system shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans.

25. 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 others areas of potential environmental impact. The measures contained in the report shall be fully implemented during the construction phase.

26. Prior to commencement of the development and during the construction phase, temporary protective metal fencing shall be erected along Slate Brook. Details of the type of protective fencing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented as such.

27. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, an area of overspill HGV parking shall be provided within the site for waiting vehicles in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The overspill HGV parking shall be provided prior to the use of the development commencing and retained in perpetuity.

Reasons

1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

3. To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and that the development therefore complies with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

4. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

5. To prevent unsightliness and visual intrusion and so ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

6. To safeguard the amenity of adjacent properties and the area generally and so comply with the provisions of Policy P.1 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

7. To allow for vehicles visiting the site to be parked clear of the highway and to assimilate the new car parking areas within the site and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policies T.2, T.13 and T.14 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

8. To avoid the possibility of the public highway being affected by the deposit of mud and/or loose materials thus creating a potential hazard for road users and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy T.2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

9. To assimilate the proposed development into its surroundings and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

10. To assimilate the proposed development into its surroundings and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

11. To allow for vehicles visiting the site to be parked clear of the highway and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policies T.2 and T.13 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

12. To allow for the effective use of parking areas and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policies T.2, T.13 and T.14 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

13. To safeguard the safety and interests of the users of the highway and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policy T.2 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

14. To encourage the use of other modes of transport other than the private car in accordance with Policy C.1 of the West Lancashire Local Plan.

15. To ensure that the site is properly drained in the interest of local amenity and that the development, therefore, complies with the provisions of Policies P.2, P.3, P.7 and U.3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

16. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area from excessive noise intrusion and so ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

17. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area from excessive noise intrusion and so ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

18. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area from excessive noise intrusion and so ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

19. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area from excessive noise intrusion and so ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

20. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area from excessive noise intrusion and so ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

21. The character and location of the property are such that certain uses of the building need to be fully assessed. Refrigerated distribution centres generally result in vehicle engines running for long periods of time in the open. This is required to be controlled in order to comply with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

22. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area and the area generally from excessive light intrusion and so ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

23. To safeguard the occupiers of the surrounding area from excessive noise intrusion and so ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

24. To ensure that the site is properly drained in the interest of local amenity and that the development, therefore, complies with the provisions of Policies P.2, P.3, P.7 and U.3 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

25. To safeguard the amenity of adjacent properties and the area generally and so comply with the provisions of Policy I.8 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

26. To protect the watercourse and prevent debris and construction material from encroaching into this area.

27. To allow for vehicles visiting the site and also those vehicles who have visited the site but not ready to move to the next site to be parked clear of the highway and to ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Policies T.2 and T.13 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

Reason for Approval

The Local Planning Authority has considered the proposed development in the context of the Development Plan including in particular the following Policy/Policies in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan :

I.6 - Extension to the Stanley Industrial Estate I.8 - Development Criteria for Industrial/Business Development T.2 - Road Traffic and Development

No. 11 APPLICATION No. 8/2006/0382 LOCATION 31,Turnpike Road,Aughton PROPOSAL First floor extension at side. APPLICANT Ms Kenny & Mr Welsh WARD Aughton & Downholland PARISH Aughton 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 29 MAY 2006

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS

2.1 2005/1494 Refused 30.03.06 First floor extension at side.

3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES

3.1 None.

4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Two letters of objection received from an adjacent occupier raising the following issues:

1. The proposal would create a terracing effect, which would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene. 2. The proposal would overshadow the rear of number 29 3. The proposal would require excavations close to the foundations of number 29. 4. The gap between the properties would only be 320mm and would not allow room for maintenance. 5. Design not in character with existing properties in the locality. 6. Re-submission does not address reason for refusal 7. Loss of gap results in continuous built form; longer than several terraces in the locality. 8. No other similar examples of such development in locality. 9. Overlooking of adjacent rear garden area. 10. Properties originally built with gaps to allow all-round maintenance.

5.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL

5.1 AUGHTON PARISH COUNCIL (26/04/06): No comments.

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

6.1 The application property is a semi-detached house in the main settlement area of Aughton. It is located in a street of predominantly detached houses which are of a wide variety of designs. The application property appears to have been previously extended at ground floor at the side and rear. Ground levels drop from east to west along this stretch of Turnpike Road.

6.2 Members may recall that an application (2005/1494) for a full depth first floor side extension was refused at Planning Committee on 16 March 2006 for the reason that the extension resulted in a terracing effect to the detriment of the street scene and locality.

6.3 The application is for a first floor side extension above the rear part of the existing garage measuring approximately 5.6 metres long x 2.9 metres wide with a ridge height of approx. 7.3 m being approx. 0.6 m lower than the ridge of the existing dwelling and set back approx. 1.5 m to meet with the rear roof slope. A low mono-pitched roof links the existing front garage eaves level with the front face of the extension which is set back 3 metres from the main façade of the dwelling.

6.4 Policy H.14 'House Extensions' of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy GD.1 'Design of Development' of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan are relevant in consideration of this application.

6.5 I consider the design and appearance of the extension acceptable with no significant detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity resulting. The extent of the step back from the existing façade and the now significant offset of the ridge lines does not, in my opinion, result in a terracing impact or give rise to a detrimental impact on the street scene or locality. The set back of the extension ensures that the original facias to the gables of the application property and that at 29 Turnpike Road remain visible to passing traffic. The proposal is therefore not out of keeping with the existing situation where two storey side extensions to properties ensure no clear visual gaps exist from this perspective; it is only the staggering of ridges and eaves that break up the mass of this particular line of properties (29-35). On this basis I consider the applicant has addressed the previous concerns of the Committee.

6.6 With respect to those outstanding issues raised by the neighbour - I do not anticipate any significant additional overshadowing as the rear elevations face almost due south. The development is shown to be entirely within the application site and therefore the close proximity and any loss of ability to maintain the neighbouring property, itself built up close to the boundary, are not relevant considerations and are issues to be addressed through The Party Walls Act if necessary. The proposed windows to the extension directly address the garden areas of the application site and are therefore considered acceptable with respect to privacy requirements.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 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 95043/04 Rev. C received by the Local Planning Authority on 10 May 2006. Plan reference 95043/05 Rev. C received by the Local Planning Authority on 10 May 2006. Plan reference 95043/06 Rev. C received by the Local Planning Authority on 10 May 2006. 3. All external brickwork 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. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Policy H.14 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 H.14 in the West Lancashire Local Plan.

Reason for Approval

1. The Local Planning Authority has considered the proposed development in the context of the Development Plan including in particular the following Policy in the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan :

H.14 House Extensions

------

No. 12 APPLICATION No. 8/2005/1519 LOCATION XL Business Park,Statham Road,Stanley Ind Estate,Skelmersdale PROPOSAL Variation of Condition No. 1 imposed on planning permission 8/2000/0801 to extend the period for submission of reserved matters to 20 December 2008. APPLICANT Gazeley Properties WARD Bickerstaffe PARISH Not Applicable 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 09 FEB 2006

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

REPORT TO FOLLOW (Withdrawn by Officers) ------

No. 13 APPLICATION No. 8/2006/0292 LOCATION Black Brook Farm,Jacksmere Lane,Scarisbrick PROPOSAL Erection of five timber holiday chalets. Change of use and alterations to polytunnel to form stable block. APPLICANT Mr D Nelson WARD Scarisbrick PARISH Scarisbrick 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 11 MAY 2006

1.0 SITE LOCATION PLAN

REPORT TO FOLLOW ------