Kendal Town Council

KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL

Planning Committee

Monday, 4th August 2014 at 6.30 p.m. in The Kendal Town Council Chamber, the Town Hall, Kendal

PRESENT Councillors John McCreesh (Chairman), Chris Hogg, Keith Hurst-Jones, Lynne Oldham, Jon Robinson and Kath Teasdale APOLOGIES Councillor Austen Robinson (Vice-Chairman) OFFICERS Margaret Graham (Secretary)

176/14/15 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST No declarations of interest were made at this point.

177/14/15 MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 21ST JULY 2014 Members considered the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 21st July 2014. Councillor Keith Hurst-Jones pointed out that he had not attended the meeting, but had tendered an apology for absence. RESOLVED that, subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting held on 21st July 2014 be accepted as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

178/14/15 FUTURE PLANNING FOR KENDAL TOWN COUNCIL : INITIAL STAGES Further to Minute 121/14/15, the Committee further discussed formulating a recommendation to Council as to whether or not KTC should write a Neighbourhood Plan. Both Councillors Keith Hurst-Jones and Kath Teasdale indicated that they felt a need to know more about the issues, and the extent to which other parties would need to become involved. Councillor Jon Robinson mentioned the financial implications for both Kendal Town Council and SLDC in the preparation and implementation of a Neighbourhood Plan. He felt that currently the costs of a Plan would outweigh the benefits, but pointed out that the situation could be re-visited in the future. Councillor McCreesh commented that a Neighbourhood Plan could be good for smaller/more rural communities which would have more to gain, but there was a significant difference of scale for a town the size of Kendal. Additionally, a lot of the allocated development sites in Kendal (in the SLDC Local Plan) had met with varying degrees of objection from residents. It was felt that this in itself would make it difficult to achieve a viable Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Jon Robinson pointed out that the production of a Neighbourhood Plan would be a long-term commitment, as there would also be a need to keep the Plan under review. Councillor McCreesh stated that the possibility of Neighbourhood Planning had been discussed by the Committee in the past, and it had been felt that this would present an immense challenge. 4.8.2014 Planning

Having reconsidered issues such as manpower, financial resources and ongoing commitment, the Committee felt that it would not be appropriate at this time to initiate preparations for a Neighbourhood Plan. It was acknowledged that the situation could be revisited in the future. It was decided to make such a recommendation to full Council. Note: At this point Councillor Chris Hogg declared an Other Registrable Interest because he is the relevant SLDC Portfolio Holder. The Committee also discussed again how the Council could manage any Neighbourhood Funding if SLDC were to introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy. It was recognised that the Town Council was generally not in a position to undertake large infrastructure projects. Councillor Chris Hogg suggested that it could either obtain the money, which could be handled similarly to the Council’s Development Fund, or influence where it should be spent on specific projects in partnership with SLDC and/or Cumbria County Council. Potential projects were mentioned which might be priorities for the Town Council but not for the other two tiers, such as - the enhancing of areas of the town/town centre, the introduction of a reduced speed limit (Twenty’s Plenty) and further infrastructure for festivals etc. . The Committee agreed it was essential that the Town Council signed off the decisions over how its 15% of the Infrastructure Levy – its “Neighbourhood Funding” – is spent, but would expect the majority of this to be expended on working with partners. RECOMMENDED (1) that Council does not embark on the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan at this time; (2) that Council ensures that it signs off decisions over how its Neighbourhood Funding monies are expended, in the expectation that the majority of this will be working in partnership with other local authorities.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS 179/14/15 Meeting with Burneside Parish Council (Minute 018/14/15, 3.6.2014) The Chairman referred to the invitation from South Lakeland District Council to meet with representatives of Burneside Parish Council in relation to its previous application to have the Parish designated as a Neighbourhood Area. The Chairman reported that the meeting had now been held, led by David Sykes from SLDC. (SLDC’s notes of the meeting had been circulated by e-mail and a copy is attached to these minutes as Appendix II). It was evident that SLDC was keen for Burneside to re- apply for Neighbourhood Area status. The Town Council’s position was that it would support Burneside PC’s application if it was prepared to take out the disputed plot of land. Councillor McCreesh said he had been given to understand by Debbie Storr at SLDC that she did not wish the Community Review to be linked into Neighbourhood Planning. He pointed out that the amount of Community Infrastructure Levy received by Kendal as Neighbourhood Funding would be determined by the Parish Boundary.

2 4.8.2014 Planning

The two Councils had agreed that they should work together on a joint response to the development briefs for the two sites on the north west of Kendal when these were put out to consultation by SLDC. RESOLVED that the situation be noted.

180/14/15 PLANNING APPLICATIONS Members considered Planning Applications submitted for consultation purposes by the local planning authority, South Lakeland District Council. It was noted that a number of planning applications had been received which required comments before the next Planning Committee meeting on 1st September. It was agreed that the Secretary should e-mail out a supplementary Schedule of these to all Committee Members, and that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman be given delegated authority to respond to South Lakeland District Council. RESOLVED that (1) having considered the applications outlined in the schedule, the recommendations in Appendix I attached to these minutes be made to South Lakeland District Council; and (2) the Chairman and Vice-Chairman be given delegated authority to respond to the supplementary Schedule.

The meeting ended at 7.20 p.m.

Signed …………………………………………………………………

Dated …………………………………………………………………

3 4.8.2014 Planning Appendix I

No. App No./ Address/ Observations/ Type Proposed Development Recommendations

1. 0674 25 Whinlatter Drive, Kendal REFUSE, retain FPA Variation of condition 6 (garage to be existing planning retained for parking domestic vehicles) condition attached to planning permission 5/01/1413 2 0419 High School House, Thorny Hills, REFUSE, out of Listed Kendal character on important Building Replace timber sash window frames on and prominent heritage four dormers with upvc sash frames building 3 0651 69 Highgate, Kendal No objection to change FPA Change of use to Cafe (Use Class A3), of use, but object to installation of canopy to front elevation, proposed canopy 4 0652 installation of kitchen and staff toilets at Listed lower ground floor level, replacement of Building metal handrail to rear of building, internal decoration and painting of external window frames and door, and installation of air condition units to rear elevation

5 0661 The Castle Green Hotel, Castle Green Approve, subject to FPA Lane, Kendal satisfactory report from Extension to car park to provide space Arboriculturist for additional 24 cars, and turning area 6 0710 2 Stricklandgate, Kendal APPROVE FPA Change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A2 (Professional and Financial Services) 7 0689 62 Greenside, Kendal APPROVE FPA Installation of replacement of timber single glazed sliding sash windows with identical timber double glazed sash windows at ground and first floor level 8 0542 Inshore Fish & Frozen Foods, APPROVE FPA Mintsfeet Road South, Kendal Demolition of existing cold storage building, extension to form car repair garage and MOT testing facility

4 4.8.2014 Planning Appendix II Dear all, Thank you for attending the meeting at Burneside on the 29th July. I think it proof that it is best to develop the dialogue when faced with contentious matters. It is clear that all wish to act in the best interests of the communities they represent whilst recognising the linkages between Burneside and Kendal interests. This is not a note of the meeting, rather the points which came out for moving matters forward. Please suggest amendments and additions if you think I have missed a key point. 1. Further informal dialogue could usefully take place between KTC and BPC regarding how development in the vicinity of the BPC/KTC boundary should be shaped and the impacts mitigated. This may not just be about the allocated site in the BPC area, but also allocated site within the KTC boundary which may have impact on Burneside. It would prove useful for the discussion to include how the parish element of future CIL receipts may best be applied. This may assure both BPC and KTC that their common interests and those of their residents can be properly taken account of by working collaboratively. 2. The current agreed process for engaging communities in shaping the future development on the Lane Foot site (described in the Local Plan as Land west of High Sparrowmire) is the Development Brief process. We clarified in the meeting that the existing dwellings at Lane Foot Farm remain outside both the allocation and the Kendal Development Boundary although the access road passes through the site. (We have subsequently checked that the buildings are some 75m beyond the site and development boundary.) The Development Brief will have Supplementary Planning Document status. It and the Local Plan policy which underpins it (LA2.1) will be the main consideration in determining any planning application and will guide development proposals and the measures required to mitigate the impacts of development and maximise the opportunities of development for both Burneside and Kendal. Both BPC and KTC will be engaged and have the opportunity to work collaboratively in shaping the work. 3. In respect of the boundary of the Neighbourhood Plan, SLDC’s view is that that with or without the inclusion of the site, there is significant value in progressing the Neighbourhood Plan for Burneside. BPC have described the opportunity for their community, with known and supportive landowners and community. The Plan will be able to address green gap issues and the issues and needs faced by all the existing residents of the Parish. A greater proportion of CIL, generated from sites within the Plan boundary, will flow to the Parish. 4. It is SLDC’s view that Local Governance Review is a separate issue to the immediate point of whether the BPC Neighbourhood Plan should cover / not cover the whole of parish. SLDC need to formally respond to KTC and BPC requests, which will require consideration by Full Council. This would likely be the meeting on the 29th September. 5. It is in all parties’ interests to resolve a position on the Neighbourhood Plan boundary which then informs future decisions on how the work in producing a Neighbourhood Plan may or may not be taken forward. SLDC would wish to determine the matter at the earliest reasonable opportunity if BPC were to given to this by BPC during the first half of September, then there could be consideration at the Cabinet meeting of the 1st October. I hope this fairly captures the points. Yours sincerely, David Sykes, Director People and Places Investors in People Champion South Lakeland District Council,