Public Document Pack
PLANNING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, 3RD APRIL, 2019, 6.00 PM
SHIELD ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE, WEST PADDOCK, LEYLAND PR25 1DH
AGENDA
1 Welcome and Introduction
2 Apologies for Absence
3 Declaration of Interest
Members are requested to indicate at this stage in the proceedings any items on the agenda in which they intend to declare an interest. Members are reminded that if the interest is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct) they must leave the room for the whole of that item. If the interest is not a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, but is such that a member of the public could reasonably regard it as being so significant that it is likely that it would prejudice their judgement of the public interest (as explained in the Code of Conduct) then they may make representations, but then must leave the meeting for the remainder of the item.
4 Minutes of the Meeting on Wednesday, 6 March 2019 (Pages 5 - 8)
To be signed as a correct record by the Chair.
5 Minutes of the Meeting on Monday, 11 March 2019 (Pages 9 - 12)
To be signed as a correct record by the Chair.
6 Appeal Decisions
The Director of Planning and Property will provide an update at the meeting.
7 07/2019/1571/FUL - 2-4 Spinners Square, Bamber Bridge (Pages 13 - 28)
Report of the Director of Planning and Property attached.
8 07/2018/8493/PIP - 25 Midge Hall Lane, Midge Hall, (Pages 29 - 36) Leyland
Report of the Director of Planning and Property attached.
Meeting contact Dianne Scambler or email [email protected] 9 07/2019/7012/FUL - Railway Bridge at Asland Close and (Pages 37 - 46) Brennand Close, Bamber Bridge
Report of the Director of Planning and Property attached.
Heather McManus CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Electronic agendas sent to Members of the Planning Committee Councillors Jon Hesketh (Chair), Rebecca Noblet (Vice-Chair), Renee Blow, Malcolm Donoghue, Bill Evans, Derek Forrest, Mick Higgins, Ken Jones, Jim Marsh, Jacqui Mort, Peter Mullineaux, Mike Nelson, Caleb Tomlinson, Graham Walton and Barrie Yates
The minutes of this meeting will be available on the internet at www.southribble.gov.uk
Forthcoming Meetings 6.00 pm Wednesday, 24 April 2019 - Level 2, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland PR25 1DH
Procedure of Debate at Planning Committee
Whenever a planning application is dealt with by Planning Committee the Council is keen to allow the local community to participate in the process. The procedure that will ordinarily be followed is that:-
Up to five members of the public who wish to speak against an application will be allowed to speak. Each will have up to four minutes in which to state their case. Up to five members of the public who wish to speak in favour of an application will then be allowed to speak. Again each will have up to four minutes in which to state their case. Borough councillors (not on Planning Committee) will then have the opportunity to make representations about the application. Each will have up to four minutes to state their case – whether for or against. The applicant/agent will then be invited to speak in support of the application. Ordinarily he/she will have up to four minutes to speak. The application will be then be discussed by Committee. At this point members of the public, the applicant and other councillors not on Committee will not be able to speak further. Planning Committee will then take a vote on the matter. No paperwork, plans or photographs will be allowed to be circulated by the applicant/agent or member of the public at the meeting.
The Chairman of Planning Committee has discretion to vary these rules when dealing with a particular application if he considers it appropriate. Whenever members of the public speak (whether in opposition to a proposal or in favour of it) they should avoid repeating the same points made by other speakers.
Filming/Recording Meetings The Council will allow any member of the public to take photographs, film, audio- record and report on any Planning Committee meeting. If anyone is intending to record any such meeting (or part of such a meeting) then it would be very helpful if they could give prior notice of their intention to the Council's Democratic Services Team. Ideally 48 hours' notice should be given.
When exercising the rights to record a Planning Committee meeting a member of the public must not in any way be disruptive to that meeting. They must not provide an oral commentary on the meeting whilst it is continuing. If disruption is caused then the Chairman of the meeting may exclude that person from the rest of the meeting.
Members of the public will not be entitled to stay in the meeting if any confidential (exempt) items of business are being discussed.
Full details of planning applications, associated documents including related consultation replies can be found on the Public Access for planning system, searching for the application using the Simple Search box. http://publicaccess.southribble.gov.uk/online-applications/ This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEETING DATE Wednesday, 6 March 2019
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillors Jon Hesketh (Chair), Renee Blow, Malcolm Donoghue, Bill Evans, Derek Forrest, Mick Higgins, Ken Jones, Jim Marsh, Jacqui Mort, Peter Mullineaux, Mike Nelson, Caleb Tomlinson, Graham Walton and Barrie Yates
OFFICERS: Charlotte Lynch (Trainee Governance and Member Services Officer), Dave Whelan (Legal Services Manager/Interim Monitoring Officer), Jonathan Noad (Director of Planning and Property), Linda Ashcroft (Planning Assistant), Janice Crook (Planning Officer), Debbie Roberts (Planning Officer) and Chris Sowerby (Interim Assistant Planning Manager (Development Management))
OTHER MEMBERS Councillor Colin Clark (Cabinet Member (Corporate Support AND OFFICERS: and Assets)), Councillor Michael Green, Councillor Michael Titherington (Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Labour Group) and Councillor Matthew Tomlinson
PUBLIC: 22
109 Welcome and Introduction
The Chair, Councillor Jon Hesketh, welcomed members of the public to the meeting, introduced the committee, and explained the roles of its members and proceedings.
110 Apologies for Absence
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Rebecca Noblet.
111 Declaration of Interest
Councillor Ken Jones declared a personal interest in Item 6 – Land at School Lane and Golden Hill Lane – and would not take part in the vote but was able, under the Code of Conduct for Elected Members, to remain in the meeting during the consideration of the application.
112 Minutes of the Last Meeting
RESOLVED: (Unanimously)
That the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 7 February 2019 be signed as a correct record by the Chair.
Planning Committee Wednesday 6 March 2019 Page 5 2
113 Appeal Decisions
The Director of Planning and Property informed the Committee of three appeals which had been referred to the Inspector relating to:
1. 25 Turpin Green Lane, Leyland – dismissed.
2. Howick Cross Service Station, 248 Liverpool Road, Penwortham – dismissed.
3. Brindle Road, Bamber Bridge – allowed.
114 07/2018/8309/FUL - Land at School Lane and Golden Hill Lane, Leyland
Speakers: 5 Objectors, Ward Councillor Mick Titherington, Ward and County Councillor Matthew Tomlinson, and the Applicant (Mr Stuart Parks, Property Director for Aldi Stores)
Address: Land at School Lane and Golden Hill Lane, Leyland
Applicant: Aldi Stores Ltd
Agent: GVA How Planning, Norfolk House, 7 Norfolk Street, Manchester, M2 1DW
Development: Erection of single storey food store (Class A1) with associated works and car parking following demolition of existing buildings.
An amendment was moved by Councillor Barrie Yates and seconded by Councillor Peter Mullineaux that the application be deferred to allow further dialogue to take place with the Applicant regarding design and highways provision.
It was requested that a review of how the School Lane and Golden Hill Lane junction would operate with additional right turn traffic from the site be provided by Lancashire County Council Highways.
The vote on the Amended Motion was Yes: 7, No: 5 and Abstain: 2 and the Chair declared that the Amended Motion was carried.
115 07/2019/0458/HOH - 36 Howick Cross Lane, Penwortham
Speakers: None
Address: 36 Howick Cross Lane, Penwortham
Applicant: Mr E Rampling
Agent: Mr J Mulkerrin, 250 Dill Hall Lane, Accrington, BB5 4DG
Development: First floor side extension above existing garage
RESOLVED: (Unanimously)
That the application be approved with conditions.
Planning Committee Wednesday 6 March 2019 Page 6 3
116 07/2018/5820/OUT - Land at 448 Croston Road, Leyland
Speakers: Councillor Michael Green
Address: Land at 448 Croston Road, Farington Moss, Leyland, PR26 6PJ
Applicant: Mr and Mrs Mark and Denise Chamberlain
Agent: Mr David Poole, Hollandia, Greta Urswick, Ulverston, LA12 0SP
Development: Outline application for residential development of 12no. dwellings with all matters reserved.
RESOLVED: (Unanimously)
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in piecemeal development which would not integrate well with the wider proposal for the comprehensive development of ‘Site W’. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy C3 of the South Ribble Local Plan.
2. The submission fails to demonstrate that a residential development can be accommodated on the site without appearing ‘shoe-horned in’, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 17 of the Core Strategy and Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan.
3. The submission fails to demonstrate that a residential development on the site can be accessed without resulting in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to para. 109 of the NPPF and Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan.
4. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate why discharge options, specifically into the ground (infiltration), to a surface water body or a surface water sewer, cannot be utilised. Therefore the proposed drainage strategy is contrary to Policy 29 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and the Planning Practice Guidance hierarchy.
5. The submission fails to demonstrate that the development would not present a surface water drainage risk that could lead to flooding on-site and/or off-site. Therefore the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policy 29 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy, the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance hierarchy.
117 07/2018/8406/HOH - 51 Kilngate, Lostock Hall
Speakers: None
Address: 51 Kilngate, Lostock Hall, Preston, PR5 5UW
Applicant: Ms Natalie Worden
Planning Committee Wednesday 6 March 2019 Page 7 4
Development: Erection of 1.8 metre high boundary fence to side and part rear in new position.
RESOLVED: (Yes: 13 No: 0 Abstain: 1)
That the application be approved with conditions.
118 07/2018/9534/FUL - Land off Wateringpool Lane, Lostock Hall
Speakers: 2 Objectors, 1 Supporter and the Applicant (Mr Mark Cox, Morris Homes North Ltd)
Address: Land off Wateringpool Lane, Lostock Hall, Lancashire
Applicant: Morris Homes North Ltd
Development: Application for residential development of 22 no dwellings and associated works
RESOLVED: (Yes: 12 No: 2)
1. That the application be approved subject to conditions.
2. That the decision be delegated to the Director of Planning and Property in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee upon the successful completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure commuted sums for off-site public open space; for the management and maintenance of on- site public space and to secure the affordable housing tenure split.
Chair Date
Planning Committee Wednesday 6 March 2019 Page 8 Agenda Item 5
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEETING DATE Monday, 11 March 2019
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillors Jon Hesketh (Chair), Rebecca Noblet (Vice-Chair), Renee Blow, Bill Evans, Derek Forrest, Mick Higgins, Ken Jones, Jim Marsh, Jacqui Mort, Peter Mullineaux, Caleb Tomlinson, Graham Walton and Barrie Yates
OFFICERS: Jonathan Noad (Director of Planning and Property), Catherine Lewis (Interim Assistant Planning Manager (Development Management)), Dave Whelan (Legal Services Manager/Interim Monitoring Officer) and Charlotte Lynch (Trainee Governance and Member Services Officer)
OTHER MEMBERS Councillor Margaret Smith (Leader of the Council and Leader of AND OFFICERS: the Conservative Group), Councillor Caroline Moon (Deputy Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member (Neighbourhoods and Streetscene) and Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group), Councillor Colin Clark (Cabinet Member (Corporate Support and Assets)), Councillor Clifford Hughes MBE (Cabinet Member (Strategic Planning and Housing)), Councillor Phil Smith (Cabinet Member (Regeneration and Leisure)), Councillor Susan Snape (Cabinet Member (Finance)), Councillor Mary Green, Councillor Michael Green, Councillor Alan Ogilvie (Member Champion (Armed Forces)) and Councillor Matthew Tomlinson
PUBLIC: 48
119 Welcome and Introduction
The Chair, Councillor Jon Hesketh, welcomed members of the public to the meeting, introduced the committee, and explained the roles of its members and proceedings.
120 Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mal Donoghue and Mike Nelson.
121 Declaration of Interest
Councillors Michael Green, Jim Marsh, Susan Snape and Barrie Yates declared personal interests in Item 4 – Test Track, Aston Way, Moss Side Industrial Estate.
David Whelan (Interim Monitoring Officer) and Charlotte Lynch (Clerk to the Committee) declared personal interests in Item 4 - Test Track, Aston Way, Moss Side Industrial Estate.
Planning Committee Monday 11 March 2019 Page 9 2
122 07/2017/3361/ORM - Test Track, Aston Way, Moss Side Industrial Estate, Leyland
Speakers: 6 objectors, 1 supporter, Ward Councillor Mary Green, Ward Councillor Michael Green, Councillor Susan Snape, and 4 representatives of the Applicant (Messrs Simon Artis, Pete Todd and Ian Hilliker of Barratt Homes and Mr Richard Lever of Property Capital)
Address: Test Track, Aston Way, Moss Side Industrial Estate, Leyland
Applicant: Property Capital and BDW Trading, 10 Church View
Agent: Turleys, 1 New York Street, Manchester
Development: Hybrid planning application comprising of Full and Outline development – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development.
Part A FULL – Site enabling works, the development of highway and drainage infrastructure for the full application site (the proposed development site) and the provision of car park accessed off Titan Way (Phase 1); together with the construction of 197 dwellings and associated internal access roads, public open space, green infrastructure, an acoustic barrier, and highway infrastructure (Phase 2)
Part B OUTLINE – for the remainder of the proposed development site for the development of between 653 and 753 new homes, up to 5,000 spm of Business Park (Use Classes B1); up to 15,000 sqm of Use Class B2 and up to 8,000 sqm Industrial Estate (Use Class B8), local centre comprising up to 3,000 sqm of accommodation for occupation within any combination of uses within Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 or D1 (including health centre/clinic) (which shall not exceed 2,500 sqm of main town centre uses), a primary school (1.646ha) and associated public open space and green infrastructure (Phases 3-5 and education, employment and local centre phases) (Amended Plans)
An amendment was moved by Councillor Ken Jones and seconded by Councillor Bill Evans that the application be deferred to allow further dialogue to take place with the Applicant concerning the viability and sustainability of the site with a particular emphasis to improving the affordable housing provision on the site and the separation distances between the proposed plots with a view to ensuring that the Council’s requirements are met in all circumstances.
The vote on the Amended Motion was Yes: 10, No: 1 and Abstain: 2 and the Chair declared that the Amended Motion was carried.
Chair Date
Planning Committee Monday 11 March 2019 Page 10 3
Planning Committee Monday 11 March 2019 Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7
Application Number 07/2019/1571/FUL
Address 2 - 4 Spinners Square Bamber Bridge Preston Lancashire PR5 6EQ
Applicant Mr Lee Forshaw
Agent Mr Chris Weetman CW Planning Solutions Ltd 1 Reeveswood Eccleston PR7 5RS
Development Change of use from A1 (shop) to A4 (drinking establishment), single storey side extension and decking area to front and side (resubmission of 07/2018/3514/FUL).
Officer Recommendation Approval with conditions Officer Name Mrs Debbie Roberts
Date application valid 18.02.2019 Target Determination Date 15.04.2019 Extension of Time None
Page 13 1. Report Summary
1.1. This applicant seeks permission to change the use of the property from retail (A1 Use Class) to a micro pub (Class A4), with beer store and decking extensions, ancillary external works and conversion of the first floor for use as a managers flat. Advertisement consent was separately applied for and granted in July 2018.
1.2. Decking has been shown to the front of the property, whilst a small landscaped area would screen beer and external bin stores from view of the highway. A number of cosmetic changes which do not require permission are also shown on proposal drawings. Noise assessment of the building, and proposed decking areas has also been undertaken
1.3. The pub would employ one full time manager and two part time staff, and opening hours have been identified as 10am – 12pm Sunday to Thursday, 10am – 1am Friday and Saturday. The premises licence issued under separate regime accepts these hours but requires installation of a noise limiting device, removal of external furniture and supervision of outside areas by 22:30. As the licence does not require closure of the decking from this time a planning condition to prevent use of the decking by visiting members of the public from 22:30 is felt necessary should permission be granted. This would assist with protection of the amenity of immediately adjacent neighbours. Deliveries and waste removal would be taken from Station Road through the dedicated access between proposed planting and decking.
1.4. Off road parking is not available, but this reflects most commercial properties in the area. County Highways have fully assessed the application (see Para 7.3 below) and have no objection
1.5. Environmental Health have assessed the applicant’s noise report, but have some concerns with regards to its content. The report assesses the site but refers to the previously refused scheme and only takes limited account of extended areas outside of the applicant’s ownership.
1.6. At the time of writing this report, and following full consultation, 29 letters of objection have been received. 61 letters of support (including 38 in response to the applicants advertisement) were also submitted in addition to a petition from 845 people. Representation is summarised at Para 6.1.1 below; late comments will be reported verbally at committee.
1.7. There is no doubt that this proposal has the potential to impact upon neighbouring properties, but concerns of the Environmental Health team who have not formally objected with regards to ‘potential’ noise nuisance do not carry sufficient weight as to warrant refusal. Alterations have been made to keep external areas to the front of the property, and to screen service areas from view but the fact remains that decking would face a number of residential properties, and any decision will be very finely balanced. Parking space is not available but this is the case for many of the properties on Station Road which is a fairly sustainable location and the Highways Authority have no objection. On balance and having regard to all of the material considerations set out in this report the proposal is considered to accord with the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, South Ribble Local Plan and Central Lancashire Core Strategy. It is therefore recommended for approval.
2. Application Site and Surrounding Area
2.1. The application refers to no: 2-4 Spinners Square, off Station Road Bamber Bridge, which until 2017 was in full use as a fishing tackle shop (A1 retail). Premises are now empty and although work has begun on the buildings refurbishment, the physical works undertaken to date do not in themselves require planning permission.
Page 14 2.2. The property is a part two/ part single storey unit which faces Station Road, but is attached at right angles to a short row of terraced dwellings. The property appears to have been an end of terrace dwelling facing away from the main road, but whose orientation has at some stage been changed; former garden areas to the south are screened by existing wall and fencing. An area of hardstanding is present to the front of the building which extends directly into the public highway. A bus stop also sits immediately to the front of the premises.
2.3. Adjacent in the south is a mixed use residential/commercial terrace; the closest neighbour being 389 Station Road (dwelling), and beyond which is Church Road Conservation Area.
2.4. To the rear of Spinners Square (east) is a small commercial business, and adjacent in the north is Bargain Booze which faces Station Road; access to properties on Spinners Square is via an alleyway between the proposal site and this shop. Residential properties are located to the north of Bargain Booze.
2.5. Immediately facing are Lychfield Drive (residential) flanked by mixed use terraced properties (predominantly residential)
2.6. There is no off road, parking for this property but this is not unusual for businesses along Station Road. Parking in front of Bargain Booze is within third party ownership, and as such is not available for use by this property
2.7. The site and immediate surroundings are designated under Policy B1 (Existing Built Up Area); Bamber Bridge District Centre being located approximately 500m to the north.
3. Site Context / Planning History
3.1. There are 5 planning applications on the history of this site:
07/1984/0198 – extension to shop. Refused July 1984 07/1987/0790 – extension to shop. Refused May 1988 07/1990/0721 – side shop extension. Approved October 1990 07/2018/3515/ADV – advertisement consent approved July 2018 07/2018/3514/FUL - Change of use from A1 (shop) to A4 (drinking establishment), single storey side extension and decking area with fencing to front and side. Refused by Planning Committee in July 2018 for the following reasons: a) The submission fails to demonstrate that internal and external use of the premises by virtue of noise, increased use and activity would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies B1(c) and G17(a) of the South Ribble Local Plan, Policy 17 (c & d) of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy b) Proposed external development would be out of keeping with, and as a result harmful to the character and appearance of the immediate area and is therefore contrary to South Ribble Local Plan Policy G17(a & b)
An appeal against this decision has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate who at the time of writing this report had not made a decision.
4. Proposal
4.1. The applicant seeks permission to change the use of the property from retail (A1 Use Class) to a micro pub (Class A4), with beer store and decking extensions, ancillary external works and conversion of the first floor for use as a managers flat.
Page 15 4.2. Main building – the property itself accounts for 117m² floor area within a 167m² site. Proposals include conversion of the ground floor to accommodate bar and sanitary areas, and conversion of the first floor to provide a small, one bedroomed flat for the pub manager. To protect the amenity of any future resident should permission be granted, a condition is recommended to restrict occupancy of the flat to employees of the business. Extraction equipment originally planned to the front elevation has not been shown on the latest proposal drawings but a condition to require pre-commencement detail is considered acceptable if permission is granted. Cosmetic refurbishment of the property which does not require planning permission is also proposed.
4.3. Beer Store Extension/ Yard Area – a small, beer store extension of 3.8m x 4.2m, with a maximum ridge height of 3.2m and eaves to 2.1m is proposed to the southern side of the building. To the west of this would be a yard area with enclosed bin store accessed from the main road, and an area of planting (3m x 3m) to both screen the yard and separate no: 389 Station Road from proposed decking. An existing wall runs along the southern side to prevent access other than from within the pub. If approved a condition to prevent use of the yard by members of the public is felt necessary.
4.4. Decking – An ‘L’ shaped area of decking is proposed to the front of the property. The decking would be 200mm high, 8.8m wide, between 1.4m (northern end) and 3.6m deep, and would be screened by wooden fence of 1.3m high. Decking would be accessed from within the pub only; access into the pub being segregated.
4.5. The pub would employ one full time manager and two part time staff, and opening hours have been identified as 10am – 12pm Sunday to Thursday, 10am – 1am Friday and Saturday. The premises licence issued under separate regime accepts these hours but requires installation of a noise limiting device, removal of external furniture and supervision of outside areas by 22:30. As the licence does not require closure of the decking from this time a planning condition to prevent use of the decking by visiting members of the public from 22:30 is felt necessary. This would assist with protection of the amenity of immediately adjacent neighbours. Deliveries and waste removal would be taken from Station Road through the dedicated access between proposed planting and decking.
4.6. A number of minor cosmetic changes would also be made during upgrade of the premises; namely:
Door on northern side would be blocked up – this would reduce pedestrian use within the vicinity of residential properties at the rear. Installation of patio doors into decking on the western side which would be screened by proposed fencing
5. Summary of Supporting Documents
5.1. The application and is accompanied by the following:
Proposed floor plans/existing elevations & floor plans (Dwg 1 of 3: Nov 2018) Entwistle Design Services Proposed elevations (Dwg 2 of 3: November 2018) Entwistle Design Services Proposed site plan (Dwg 3 of 3: November 2018) Entwistle Design Services Noise Impact Assessment (John Holdsworthy/Sound Advice: 3.10.18) Planning Statement (CW Planning)
Page 16 6. Representations
6.1. Summary of Publicity
6.1.1.A site notice has been posted, and 46 neighbouring properties consulted.
6.2. Letters of Objection
6.2.1.At the time of writing this report 29 individual letters of objection have been received. Comments are summarised as
Residential Amenity Impact to neighbouring residents from both internal and external general use of the premises after 10pm; particularly retirement and care homes across Station Road Effect on vulnerable individuals, children and elderly residents from drunk users of the pub Smoke from people using smoking area would impact directly on adjacent properties Potential for anti-social behaviour Respondent lives immediately to the side of the property, and does not wish to bring up 2 children next to a pub. Light pollution from external lighting Risks to child safety (neighbouring children) which would also contradict licencing objectives
Noise Noise from clients arriving and leaving by taxi, and queuing for admission but waiting in front of residential properties Increased noise will result in loss of sleep to residents and will affect quality of life; particularly residents of Spinners Square dwellings whose properties are 200 years old and have no cavity wall protection Problems should music be allowed at, or outside of the premises Noise from proposed refrigeration unit Noise from bottle collection will travel Residents will not be able to open windows during pub opening hours – this has traditionally been the quiet part of Bamber Bridge
Design Property and its outside areas have been left in an untidy state so as to make it appear as if it is ‘in need of saving’ ‘Poorly thought out and cheap materials’ proposed
Highways Proposal will exacerbate parking problems on Station Road, Lychfield Drive and West View Lack of off road parking and presence of bus stop means that deliveries, waste removal vehicles and taxis will park directly outside neighbouring properties No parking proposed for either pub or managers flat Reduced width to pavement – proposal is wholly within the applicants land and not on the public highway
Other Comments Two respondents say that they have received a copy of a letter of thanks for signing the petition from the Withy Arms. Neither resident supports the scheme or has signed a petition, and both are of the opinion that signatures have been fabricated to sway opinion. The first supplies a copy of the letter which appears to be a mistake as it is addressed to someone else. A check has also been made by your officers and neither name is listed within the petition.
Page 17 Users of the bus stop will be intimidated by users of the pub First noise report undertook sound testing in adjacent property but second assessment did not – Environmental Health have confirmed that they have no issue with regards to how testing proceeded, and that testing on a second occasion was not necessary Disparity between opening times for this property and other micro-pubs Respondent questions if consultation has been undertaken to Sue Ryder (1.5km south- east) and Dixons Farm (500m south) – both of which accommodate vulnerable adults. As both properties are distant from Spinners Square neither has been consulted directly, although statutory consultation has been undertaken in the usual way.
Comments have also been made which as non-material planning considerations have not been taken into account: ‘There are too many pubs in the area’ – Proliferation of premises is not relevant to this proposal Proposal will deter house sales and reduce house value – property value is not a material planning consideration Proposed garden area is a potential fire hazard – refers recent fire at similar property in Fulwood Proposed times allowed by applicants licence differ to other pubs in the area. Proposed dress code and caretaking measures will not happen – there is a lack of staff intervention at other premises when things go wrong The applicant is trying to bribe people with free gifts in return for support (see Para 6.3.2 below). Separate respondent sought clarification from the Councils Licensing Manager about the lawfulness of free drink/gift offer advertised Respondent suggests the pub should relocate to ‘one of the new units near Morrison’s’ Comments made with regards to applicants working practices at his other venues and general behaviour
6.3. Letters of Support
6.3.1.A petition with 845 signatures raised by the applicant in support of the proposal has been submitted. 61 other letters of support (including two from directors of the Withy Arms Group Ltd) have also been received which are summarised as:
Support for redevelopment of the untidy site Investment is needed in this neglected part of Bamber Bridge Proposal would enhance community spirit and be a community hub Micro pubs are a smaller, much friendlier type of place and are better for ‘mature drinkers’ Very few ‘great leisure offers’ to the south of the railway line Withy Group properties are ’a great place to eat’ Respondent refers to the applicants track record
6.3.2.Of these 61 letters of support, 38 specifically refer to the proposal as a café/coffee bar or copy the Withy Arms group e mail into their representation. Proposals submitted to the Council have not at any point identified the premises as a coffee bar but the scheme is referred to as such in an advert placed by the applicant on social media which states.
‘Please show your support for our coffee bar/micro pub by sending an e mail to … (gives Council contact details). Copy us in (Weavers Arms) on your e mail so that we can make sure you have an invite to the VIP opening night with loads of free samples and goodies’
Conversely objection to the scheme has been submitted by three residents who live outside of the borough, and who would not suffer in any way from redevelopment of the site.
Page 18 It is for members to decide how much weight should be given to these submissions in the decision process.
7. Summary of Responses
7.1. Environmental Health have the following comments to make:
1. The planning support statement refers to the decking area as used for smoking. The use of the decking area is not limited to this and a condition of the licence is that the outside furniture is removed from this decking area at 10.30pm.
2. The acoustic report referred to on page 8 of the supporting statement as ‘accepted by the EHO’ was only partially accepted. The most contentious part of the report relating to the decking was definitely not accepted and this ultimately led to the re-design of the decking area. The acoustic report itself refers to the earlier design which is different to this planning application.
3. In order to continue to fulfil its purpose the area of protective planting will need to be maintained such that customers cannot use this area. A condition to this effect would be imposed should permission be granted.
4. The licensing objective of prevention of public nuisance is a different standard to the loss of amenity considered under planning. It is quite possible for noise issues to lead to a loss of amenity without them amounting to a public or statutory nuisance.
7.1.1. Premises Licence - a premises licence has already been granted for opening between 10am till midnight Sunday to Thursday and 10am till 1am Friday and Saturday, but is subject to a number of conditions.
7.1.2. The applicant requires separate planning permission and Members should be aware that Planning and Licensing are separate regimes, and that the decision of the Council in its capacity as licensing authority in no way binds its ability to make a different decision in its planning capacity. The Council’s ability to defend a planning refusal would not be fettered by a decision to allow a premises licence. The decision of whether or not any noise would be acceptable in planning terms would be subject to a different decision making test. This is made expressly clear in the s.182 Guidance published under the 2003 Licensing Act which should be given considerable weight in the planning balance, and says that:
7.1.3. “The statement of licensing policy should indicate that planning permission, building control approval and licensing regimes will be properly separated to avoid duplication and inefficiency. The planning and licensing regimes involve consideration of different (albeit related) matters. Licensing committees are not bound by decisions made by a planning committee, and vice versa.”
7.2. Lancashire Constabulary’s response details a number of criminal incidents reported at the site within the last 12 months. They have assessed the application and confidential security information, and recommend a number of security measures which should be addressed prior to first occupation of the premises. An informative note to this effect would be included with any permission granted.
7.3 Lancashire County Council Highways note that there are 2 recorded incidents on the LCC 5 year accident database; none of which would have been worsened by the proposed development. LCC are satisfied that the proposed decking is located outside of the adopted highway and that areas around the bus stop are wide enough to accommodate pedestrian movements. They acknowledge that parking is sub-standard, but taking into account the existing commercial use, and its sustainable location i.e. close to public transport/rail
Page 19 services, where parking is limited for all business and residential premises, they do not object on parking or highway grounds.
8. Material Considerations
8.1. Site Allocation
8.1.1. The site is designated under Policy B1 (Existing Built Up Area) of the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026
8.1.2. Policy B1 allows for redevelopment in allocated areas provided that proposals would comply with requirements of the local plan relating to access, parking and servicing; would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area, and would not adversely affect the amenity of nearby residents.
8.2. Policy Background
Additional policy of marked relevance to this proposal is as follows:
8.2.1.National Planning Policy Framework (2019)
The NPPF at Para’s 8 and 11: provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and supports sustainable economic growth which respects health, social and cultural wellbeing. Other pertinent chapters of the NPPF are:
8.2.1.2 Chapter 6: Building a Strong, Competitive Economy. Para 80 states that planning decisions should take into account local business needs and wider opportunities for development, allowing each area to build on its strengths and address the challenges of the future. Planning policies should also be ‘flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plans and to allow rapid response to changes in economic circumstances’ (Para 81)
8.2.1.3. Chapter 12: Achieving Well Designed Places attaches great importance to the design of the built environment which contributes positively to making better places for people. Para 127(f) of this chapter states that planning decisions should promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
8.2.1.4. Chapter 15: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment – Although primarily concerned with more rural aspects of the natural environment, Para: 170(e) does aim to ‘prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of … noise pollution’ . Para 180 of the same chapter states that decisions should ‘mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life’ 8.2.2.Central Lancashire Core Strategy
8.2.2.1. Policy 1: Locating Growth focusses growth and investment on well-located, brownfield sites within key service and urban areas of the Borough; one of which is Bamber Bridge, but with a focus on district centre regeneration.
8.2.2.2. Policy 3: Travel encourages alternative, sustainable travel methods to reduce dependence on motor vehicles.
Page 20 8.2.2.3. Policy 12: Culture & Entertainment Facilities seeks to ‘promote cultural and entertainment facilities within key centres’ which ‘are important in attracting visitors and investment to the area’.
8.2.2.4. Policy 17: Design of New Buildings requires new development to take account of the character and appearance of the local area.
8.2.2.5. Policy 26: Crime & Community Safety seeks to reduce crime levels and improve community safety by encouraging the inclusion of Secured by Design principles in new development.
8.2.3. South Ribble Local Plan
In addition to site allocation policy B1 (above), the following are also pertinent:
8.2.3.1. Policy F1: Parking Standards requires all development proposals to provide car parking and servicing space in accordance with parking standards adopted by the Council.
8.2.3.2. Policy G17: Design Criteria for New Development considers design in general terms, and impact of the development upon highways safety, the extended locale and the natural environment.
8.3. Local Economy
8.3.2.The application premises sit just outside of an established local centre, and the proposal is likely to support rather than impact upon local business by attracting people into the area. The micro-pub market is a relatively new market, and although not specifically considered within the Development Plan itself, removes a vacant premises whilst offering a level of positive diversification to Bamber Bridge. There is no dispute that proposed changes would be acceptable from an economic perspective.
8.4. Impact of Development on Neighbouring Properties
8.4.2. Proposed sanitary areas of the pub would be attached the No: 6 Spinners Square, whilst the rear of the beer store would abut this properties rear garden. No: 8 Spinners Square would sit beyond this property in the east. Both Spinners Square neighbours are domestic properties.
8.4.3. In the south is 389 Station Road whose side elevation would face the side of the proposed yard and landscaped area, and would be screened by the existing wall. In the north is Bargain Booze at a distance of 4m.Properties face across Station Road at approximately 22m from the front of proposed decking.
8.4.4. Problems arising from noise and general use of the premises are not considered to be of detriment to Bargain Booze, although unauthorised use of the neighbour’s car park by customers of, and deliveries to the proposed pub might hamper the adjacent business which requires unrestricted access to its own site. The applicants Noise Impact Assessment has been considered by Environmental Health and in principle mitigation to the building is considered to assuage any impact resulting from noise to adjacent residents. The same guarantee cannot be made with regards to noise issue from the proposed decking, however a number of amendments to the earlier scheme should offer some reduction in potential noise pollution and the current traffic noise situation must be given some consideration. The proposed beer store and existing fence will offer some screening to the resident of no: 6 Spinners Square. Decking has been purposely positioned to be away from its attached neighbours and is well screened but would face residential properties on Station Road; conditions to prevent its use after 10.30pm (if approved) should assist with retaining control.
Page 21 8.4.5. Daytime stock deliveries to the property would be similar to those of any other business, but the arrival and departure of customers by taxi has the potential – particularly late at night – to be of issue. There are no parking spaces available to the property but driving to and from such premises by customers would be discouraged anyway.
8.4.6. The negative impact of the current, untidy site on the visual amenity of the area should also be afforded some weight in the planning argument.
8.5. Design, Character & Appearance
8.5.2. Local Plan Policy G17 (Design Criteria for new development) seeks to ensure new development relates well to neighbouring buildings and the extended locality, that layout, design and landscaping of all elements of the proposal are of a high quality; providing interesting visual environments which respect local character, reflect local distinctiveness, and offer appropriate levels of parking and servicing space in line with Policy F1 (Parking Standards) of the same document. Core Strategy Policy 17 (Design of New Buildings) effectively mirrors these criteria.
8.5.3. In consideration of the above, local distinctiveness and character of the area have been assessed. This part of Bamber Bridge is a fairly traditional mix of terraced, commercial and new build, supported/retirement living properties. Retail properties in Bamber Bridge are mainly to the north although some do exist towards and beyond this site. The Conservation Area sits 30m to the south
8.5.4. Conversion of the property would undoubtedly upgrade what is a very tired unit – the applicant has a track record in the area of well-maintained properties, and in purely visual terms, minimal changes to allow for the proposal change of use alone are not considered unacceptable. Refrigeration equipment proposed on the earlier scheme has not been shown on this occasion, but its placement can be appropriately controlled by condition.
8.6. Highways Considerations, Suitability of Access and Parking Arrangements
8.6.2. Highways issues have been assessed by LCC as the Highways Authority, and whilst they recognise that on-site parking following development would be unavailable, they accept this reduced standard as the norm along Station Road and have no objection. It should be noted however that following erection of proposed decking, hardstanding used currently for deliveries would be lost, and as the road immediately to the front of the building is spanned by a bus stop, delivery wagons will be forced to park unlawfully, or in front of adjacent residential properties to the detriment of neighbouring occupants
8.7. Noise
8.8. Noise has been assessed by South Ribble Environmental Health as the Councils acoustic specialist; their comments are noted above. The applicant’s noise report seeks to address issues raised during the initial scheme. It notes that whilst EH had concerns with regards to flanking noise between properties, their comments are out of proportion as some flanking noise would be found in all attached properties. The existence of noise is less relevant than whether that noise is disproportionate. Noise assessment has been undertaken on the area proposed for external use, and the report acknowledges that in the current situation, and with existing traffic in mind, it is unlikely that residents would in any case be able to open windows without experiencing some noise nuisance. That being said, it should be taken into account that traffic reduces in the evening to allow residents a level of peace which would arguably be lost should permission be granted.
8.9. Environmental Health have noted that the latest noise assessment refers to the previous scheme which throws some doubt onto its efficacy.
Page 22 9. Conclusion
9.1 The application proposes change of use of 2-4 Spinners Square to micro-pub, with erection of external decking and ancillary works. The application has been assessed by the Councils statutory consultees, and whilst LCC now have no objection on parking or highways safety grounds, there are concerns with regards to noise arising from the premises and its surroundings if approved.
Positive and negative aspects of the proposal are listed below, and may assist with Members when weighing up the planning balance. Please also bear in mind the requirement to separate licensing and planning regimes.
In support of the proposal The scheme will re-use an empty property in an edge of town centre location Benefits to local economy and employment – positive investment in Bamber Bridge Petition with 845 signatures and 61 letters of support; albeit 38 are in response to incentives offered by the applicant Parking situation reflects that of other Station Road properties
Against the proposal 29 letters of objection Potential for noise from areas outside the applicants ‘red edge’ which cannot be assessed by Noise Impact Assessment, but are associated with use of the property Impact to neighbouring residents resulting from lack of customer, service or Managers flat parking Potential noise, smoke (from external areas) and light pollution
9.2 The applicant has provided information to show that works to internal areas of the building could protect the living conditions and amenity of neighbouring properties. Noise from decking cannot be completely mitigated against but conditions could be put in place to reduce any negative impact. Areas outside of the applicant’s ownership however cannot be controlled via noise mitigation e.g. increased activity, noise and traffic generation i.e. client arrival/collection by taxi, delivery vehicles without off road parking etc.
9.3. There is no doubt that this proposal has the potential to impact upon neighbouring properties, but concerns of the Environmental Health team who have not formally objected with regards to ‘potential’ noise nuisance do not carry sufficient weight as to warrant refusal. Alterations have been made to keep external areas to the front of the property, and to screen service areas from view but the fact remains that decking would face a number of residential properties, and any decision will be very finely balanced. Parking space is not available but this is the case for many of the properties on Station Road which is a fairly sustainable location and the Highways Authority have no objection. On balance and having regard to all of the material considerations set out in this report the proposal is considered to accord with the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, South Ribble Local Plan and Central Lancashire Core Strategy. It is therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with Conditions.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Page 23 2. The development, hereby permitted, shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans Proposed floor plans (Dwg 1 of 3: amended April 2018) Entwistle Design Services Proposed elevations (Dwg 2 of 3: amended April 2018) Entwistle Design Services Proposed site plan (Dwg 3 of 3: amended April 2018) Entwistle Design Services CCTV/Security Plan (Confidential) Site Management Plan: 2018 Noise Impact Assessment (John Holdsworthy/Sound Advice: 22.5.18) Planning Statement REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development
3. No work shall be commenced until satisfactory details of the colour and texture of the facing and roofing materials to be used have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure before development commences that materials used will result in the developments satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Local Plan 2012-2026 Policy G17
4. Prior to the commencement of the development details of all extraction, refrigeration and external ventilation stacks (including height or stacks and noise levels to be produced) shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include confirmation where appropriate that fixed mechanical plant is enclosed with sound insulating material and mounted in a way which will minimise transmission of structure and air borne sound, The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to first use of the site and shall thereafter be retained and maintained in efficient working order for the duration of the approved use. REASON: In the interests of the amenity and to safe guard the living conditions of the nearby residents in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.
5. During construction and site clearance, no machinery shall be operated, no processes carried out or deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site outside the following times: 0800 hrs to 1800 hrs Monday to Friday 0900 hrs to 1300 hrs Saturday No activities shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. REASON: To safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents particularly with regard to the effects of noise in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy
6. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the beer store and waste storage area has been constructed in full. REASON: To safeguard the character and visual appearance of the area and to safeguard the living conditions of any nearby residents particularly with regard to odours and/or disturbance in accordance with Policy 27 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Local Plan 2012-2026 Policy G17
7. The occupation of the first floor flat shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed by the business hereby approved, including a dependent of such a person residing with him/her. REASON: To safeguard the living conditions of any future occupants of the flat hereby approved particularly with regard to the effects of noise in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy
Page 24 8. The use of the outside seating area by vising members of the public shall cease at 10.30pm, and all artificial lighting - other than those identified above fascia signage by approved plan '2 of 3' November 2018 (Entwistle Design) shall be switched off by 10.30pm. REASON: In the interests of the amenity and to safe guard the living conditions of the nearby residents in accordance with Local Plan 2012-2026 Policy G17 and Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.
9. The yard/ waste storage area identified by approved plan 3 of 3 shall not be used by vising members of the public at any time REASON: In the interests of the amenity and to safe guard the living conditions of the nearby residents in accordance with Local Plan 2012-2026 Policy G17 and Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.
10. No recorded or live music, televisions or similar media devices shall be used in the outside area REASON: In the interests of the amenity and to safe guard the living conditions of the nearby residents in accordance with Local Plan 2012-2026 Policy G17 and Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.
11. Refuse, recycling and waste materials shall only be stored in the waste store identified by approved plan 1 Of 3. Materials shall not be stored on the public highway or pavement adjacent to the public highway unless on the day of collection by an appropriate body. Immediately following collection, waste containers/bins shall be moved back to the recessed area. The approved area shall be retained thereafter for waste storage and for no other purpose unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To safeguard the character and visual appearance of the area and to safeguard the living conditions of any nearby residents particularly with regard to odours and/or disturbance in accordance with Policies B1(c) and G17 in the South Ribble Local Plan
12. No additional external lighting or heating shall be provided unless with the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents particularly with regard to the effects of noise in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Local Plan Policy G17
13. Waste, including empty bottles shall not be removed from within the premises (taken outside) between the hours of 6pm and 8am on any day. REASON: To safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents particularly with regard to the effects of noise in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy
14. Deliveries to the premises shall not be taken outside the hours of 10am and 4pm To safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents particularly with regard to the effects of noise in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy
15. All recorded music shall be played via a sound limiting device. Details of the device shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval prior to first use of the building hereby approved, and must include an anti-tampering control. The limiter shall be set in conjunction with the Environmental Health Section of the Council to ensure that the resulting sound cannot be heard at neighbouring properties. REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the nearby residents in accordance with Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and the NPPF
Page 25 16. The approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following completion of the development or first occupation/use, whichever is the soonest, and shall be maintained thereafter for a period of not less than 5 years to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, in compliance with BS 5837 2012 - Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations. This maintenance shall include the watering, weeding, mulching and adjustment and removal of stakes and support systems, and shall include the replacement of any tree or shrub which is removed, becomes seriously damaged, seriously diseased or dies by the same species. The replacement tree or shrub must be of similar size to that originally planted. The planting area shall not be used for any other purposes, and shall be retained at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy, Policy G13 and Policy G17 in the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026
17. Prior to first use of the building as hereby approved, the construction details recommended by the submitted noise report (Sound Advice: 22nd May 2018) shall be installed. Following installation of mitigation works further testing shall be undertaken to show that the party wall can achieve a level of at least 55db DnTW*Ctr. The report shall be supplied and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and shall include, but not be limited to details of a) How speaker mounts have been isolated from the walls, and b) Calculated noise levels from the beer chiller unit at adjacent residential accommodation and accommodation across the street. Once agreed any necessary control measures shall be implemented prior to first opening of the business, and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the nearby residents in accordance with Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and the NPPF.
RELEVANT POLICY
National Planning Policy Framework
Central Lancashire Core Strategy 1 Locating Growth 3 Travel 12 Culture and Entertainment Facilities 17 Design of New Buildings 26 Crime and Community Safety
South Ribble Local Plan B1 Existing Built-Up Areas F1 Car Parking G17 Design Criteria for New Development
Note:
1. Informative: Lancashire Constabulary recommend that prior to first occupation of the premises hereby approved, the following should be installed, maintained and retained thereafter.
A recorded HD digital colour CCTV system should be installed to BS EN 62676 series. The system should cover the outside of the building, especially entrance and exits doors, and internal public areas to deter criminal or anti-social behaviour activities and for any evidential purposes. The cameras must not be located where they can be easily disabled or tampered with. If they can be reached, they must be housed within a secure
Page 26 casing to protect them from damage or mounted on dedicated anti-climb metal poles. Recorded images should be time and date stamped and stored for a 30-day period before being destroyed. CCTV recording equipment must be stored in a locked room and staff suitably trained to use the system in order to retrieve data should an offence take place. Adequate clear signage should inform users of the site that CCTV is present and in operation.
All new windows and doors should be PAS24:2012/2016 certification or an alternative acceptable standard, such as LPS 1175. Existing doors and frames should be solid, robust and incorporate lock devices certified to BS EN 1303:2015 (TS007 3 Star standard) or BS 3621, as minimum standards, and any glazing should be laminated. Ground floor or easily accessible windows should be fitted with key operated locks (keys removed and stored securely) to reduce the risk of burglary and incorporate laminated glazing. Key operated window restrictors should also be installed to prevent 'sneak-in' type thefts (unless designated fire exits).
Due to the nature of the business and the inclusion of residential accommodation above, a bespoke wireless or hardwired monitored Intruder Alarm system should be installed to EN50131 (Grade 1-4) that complies with the National Police Chiefs Council Policy 'Guidelines on Police Requirements and Response to Security Systems'. The system should cover all available points of access (doors, windows and ceiling/roof). A full risk assessment should identify whether the design of the alarm system incorporates a combination of internal passive infrared detectors, magnetic door and window contacts, break glass acoustic or vibration detectors, wall or ceiling sensor cable facilities. The alarm installation company should be certified by the National Security Inspectorate (NSI) or Security Systems Alarm Inspection Board (SSAIB), as both organisations promote high standards of service within the security community.
Access to any roof areas should be restricted at all times. External rainwater pipes can be used as climbing aids they should be either square or rectangular in section, fitted flush against the wall or contained within a wall cavity or covered recess. Bends in pipes and horizontal runs should be minimized. External pipework should be of a fire resistant material. In addition, careful consideration should be given to the location of low rails; fencing; planters; or other external furniture, which may also facilitate easy access onto roof areas.
Any fencing around the external seating areas should be designed to deter climbing over whilst still allowing natural surveillance into the area.
If roller shutters/curtains are incorporated into the building, they should comply with security certification to LPS 1175: SR 1, as a minimum standard.
The external waste storage area should be locked and secure to prevent unauthorised access, and covered by the CCTV system. The area should also be well lit using anti-vandal photoelectric 'dusk until dawn' fitments. Waste bins should have lockable lids to reduce the risk of arson and secured, especially those with wheels that can be used as climbing aids.
External furniture and garden planters should be securely fixed in place so that they cannot be easily moved or stolen. However, as an alternative measure the external furniture used on outside decking areas could be removed and stored securely when the business is closed.
Any landscaping or garden planters should not aid access onto the roof or impede the CCTV system, lighting provision, natural surveillance of the building and external seating areas.
Page 27 A comprehensive access control system should be incorporated onto specific doors of the building to restrict unauthorised access into private areas, such as the first floor living accommodation (at the bottom of the access spiral staircase), beer store, office space, storerooms etc. This could be via a digital push button lock (pin code must be kept secure and changed regularly); electronic proximity card reader; or cylinder night latch lock. However, if a key operated device is fitted then this should be kept locked at all times and incorporate a thumb turn on the inside, if deemed a fire exit. Automatic door closers should also be installed onto these door sets.
The bar itself should be high and wide with access restricted to the staff area in order to reduce the risk of potentially aggressive customers reaching over to intimidate or assault staff. A personal attack facility for staff should be linked to the intruder alarm system. The bar staff should have a clear view of all the public areas.
Emergency exit doors can be vulnerable to intruder attack and vandalism and should be free from external hardware and kept clear at all times. They should be illuminated to promote natural surveillance, linked into the intruder alarm system and covered by CCTV to deter crime and anti-social behaviour.
There have been a large number of reported thefts and burglaries at construction sites across all areas of Lancashire. High value plant machinery, hand and power tools, lead and metal piping, insulation materials, white goods and boilers have been targeted, with some stolen items used to commit further criminal offences. Therefore, the site must be secured throughout the construction phase to should include security measures, such as; robust 2.4m high anti-climb weld mesh perimeter fencing with matching lockable gates; a monitored alarm system (with a response provision) for site cabins where tools, materials and fuel may be stored; a monitored and/or recorded HD digital colour CCTV system, accredited with either National Security inspectorate (NSI) or Security Systems & Alarm inspection Board (SSAIB). Onsite CCTV recording equipment must be stored securely and located within an alarmed building/cabin.
A full fire risk assessment should be undertaken, especially in relation to fire exit provision for customers and residents living in the first floor accommodation.
Attention is drawn to the condition(s) attached to this planning permission. In order to discharge these conditions an Application for Approval of Details Reserved by Condition form must be submitted, together with details required by each condition imposed. The fee for such an application is £116. The forms can be found on South Ribble Borough Council's website www.southribble.gov.uk
Page 28 Agenda Item 8
Application Number 07/2018/8493/PIP
Address 25 Midge Hall Lane Midge Hall Leyland
Applicant Mrs Susan Snape
Agent Mrs Louise Leyland PWA Planning
Development Application for Permission In Principle for erection of one dwelling.
Officer Recommendation Refusal
Date application valid 16.11.2018 Target Determination Date 21.12.2018 Extension of Time None
1. Introduction
1.1. The application is brought before Committee as the applicant is an Elected Council Member.
1
Page 29 2. Application Site and Surrounding Area
2.1. This application refers to no: 25 Midge Hall Lane, Leyland; a large detached dwelling with wide front elevation and detached garage to the rear. Deep rear gardens screened by mature hedgerow and trees sit to the south, whilst in the east is similarly screened, side garden space. This side garden is the subject of the application to be determined.
2.2. Immediately east of the proposal site is a track leading to Midge Hall Farm and Moss Farm paintballing facility (160m south and 700m south-west respectively), and 61m in the north-west is ‘Arden House’. Station Farm lies 146m in the north, and 95m east is Bamfords Mill; properties are separated by the mills, large open car park. The small village/hamlet of Midge Hall Lane sits beyond Bamfords Mill.
2.3. Facing across Midge Hall Lane, and at the rear and west of the proposal site are deep tracts of open land. The area is open and rural in nature, and designated by Policy G1 of the South Ribble Local Plan as Green Belt.
3. Site Context / Planning History
3.1. There is one planning application on the history of this site. Permission was granted in 1998 (07/1998/0164) for alterations to dwellinghouse, and erection of double garage following demolition of existing.
3.2. This application was brought before Committee in February 2019 but deferred to allow the application to submit additional information pertaining to ‘very special circumstances’
4. Proposal
4.1. Background: Permission in Principle (PIP) applications are a new type of application which came into force on 1st June 2018. PIP’s are an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing led development, and separate the consideration of matters of principle for proposed development, from the technical detail. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or ‘permission in principle’ stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed.
4.2. As set down in the Town & Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 and Town & Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017, the scope of PIP (stage 1 of the process) is restricted to consideration of location, development size and land use. All other matters are ‘reserved’ for consideration by the stage 2 technical details application which may only be made if PIP is granted.
4.3. Granting of technical details consent has the effect of granting full planning permission for development; construction cannot proceed on the basis of consent for stage 1 alone.
4.4. Conditions can NOT be imposed on approvals for planning in principle
4.5. Proposal: This application seeks planning permission in principle for the erection of one dwelling which has been designed specifically to conform to, and be adaptable in line with Building Regulations Approved Document Parts M2 and 3 (Accessible & Adaptable Dwellings / Wheelchair User Dwellings). Typically identified as ‘specialist housing’, this type 2
Page 30 of property assists occupant who wish to live independently for as long as possible in their own home.
4.6. Although the regulations require that only a location plan is supplied, the application includes indicative elevational and floor plans. Details of the design, layout and access into the site are however not relevant at this stage and indicative plans are subject to change at a later date.
5. Representations
5.1. Summary of Publicity
5.1.1. PIP consultation is restricted to a period of 14 days only which took place in full prior to first consideration of the proposal. Additional supporting information is of a nature which would not require a second period of consultation.
5.1.2. A site notice has been posted and two neighbouring properties have been consulted. Consultation with statutory bodies at this stage is not appropriate considering the lack of proposed detail and restricted timescales allowed.
5.2. Letters of Objection or Support
5.3. In total seven letters of support has been received which refer to the proposals design, proposed Test Track development, availability of bungalows in the area, and the applicant’s health needs which had not initially been identified by the applicant. Issues of design cannot be taken into account until the Technical Details stage of the proposal, and a discussion surrounding the applicants health needs is found at Para 6.16 below.
5.4. Comments specifically referring to the principles of location, development size and land use include:
Resident immediately adjacent in the north confirms agreement to all of the three relevant points There is no ‘Green Belt’ openness as views through the garden cannot be seen, and there would be no harm caused by developing a Green Belt site Respondent states that ‘the Council says the house has to be the same size as the existing property’. In line with adopted and national design policy it is good practice for proposals to take account and be reflective of their immediate surroundings, although there is no prescriptive localised requirement for properties to be of a certain size or height. That Green Belt openness begins after no: 27 Midge Hall (north). The Green Belt coverage ‘washes over’ properties up to and beyond no: 27; openness in such cases is not only limited to undeveloped, wide open areas.
6. Material Considerations
6.1. The scope of Planning in Principle is restricted to location, development size and land use.
6.2. Location: In terms of location, the proposal site is not especially sustainable and is not accessed by public transport, but it is within reasonable reach of community facilities in Longton and at Midge Hall; although only a very limited offer (church, pub, pet supplies store) lies within easy walking distance. In the long term, proposed development of the Test Track would include community facilities within closer proximity, although these would not be immediately available. From a locational perspective the proposal is considered adequate but not wholly sustainable. 3
Page 31 6.3. The applicant refers in their statement to the Councils five year supply. The NPPF states that where the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing the presumption in favour of sustainable development (tilted balance) would be applied. In this case the provision of specialist housing is to be balanced against the harm caused to the Green Belt, and whilst the tilted balance effectively lowers the threshold in the planning balance, it could be argued that development of a site which is not fully sustainability does not warrant consideration against this presumption.
6.4. Having particular regard to five year housing supply, and whether the tilted balance should be applied in any case, the Councils Policy Team have the following comment:
6.5. ‘We are unable to confirm any housing land supply figures until we have completed our year end housing completion surveys. In the meantime, using the recently confirmed standard methodology, we are expecting to have a supply of over 17 years (including a 10% buffer) at the end of the financial year. If we are required to use the previous methodology, we anticipate our supply will be a little over five years (including a 20% buffer). Unfortunately, based on decisions made by different Inspectors at various appeals/inquiries in the country, it is currently unclear which method we are required to use’.
6.6. Development Size: Local Plan Policy G17 (Design for New Development) states that proposals for development should not have a detrimental impact on the existing building, neighbouring buildings or on the street scene by virtue of its design, height, scale, orientation, plot density, massing, proximity, or use of materials (G17a).
6.7. The proposal seeks permission to erect one dwelling following subdivision of existing curtilage of no: 25 Midge Hall Lane. The current property is a large dwelling, traditionally designed but with a very wide front elevation. Whilst the proposed site is capable of accommodating one dwelling, it is questionable as to whether one of appropriate size is possible.
6.8. Backland residential development in this linear, rural street scene is likely to be out of character with the wider area, and in such areas where ‘ribbon’ development is prevalent is not generally considered acceptable. That being said, there is backland development in the area although in the main this is agricultural or commercial in nature. Any proposed dwelling would need to respect, and be complementary to both the street scene and existing property. Arguably therefore to avoid any disproportion between neighbouring properties, any new dwelling which sits alongside no: 25 would need to have a similarly wide frontage, which when taking into account mature tree and hedgerows which this Council would seek to retain could not be accommodated. A dwelling of less width is likely to appear ‘shoe horned’ into the site with resulting detriment to the street scene
6.9. Some consideration should however be given to permitted development rights which remain at this property, and which would allow considerable outbuildings to both rear and sides of this property without planning permission. Whilst these would not in the short term be useable living accommodation, their development would be as visually impactful as a new dwelling.
6.10. Land Use: The site and extended surroundings are allocated as Green Belt by Policy G1 of the South Ribble Local Plan; ‘Green Belt’ being a land use designation. Para 2 of the NPPF (2019) requires that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
6.11. Both the NPPF and Policy G1 define inappropriate development - including construction of new buildings - as harmful to the Green Belt, which should not be approved except in very special circumstances. When considering any planning application, ‘very
4
Page 32 special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. There are however exceptions to this as detailed in the current NPPF, and these are: a) buildings for agriculture and forestry; b) provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; c) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; d) the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; e) limited infilling in villages f) limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the development plan; and g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would a) not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development and b) not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.
6.12. The most salient of these are points (e) and (g).
6.13. South Ribble contains a whole range of villages – some with substantially built up frontages where an infill plot would seamlessly complement surrounding development patterns, and others which are more loose and organic in character. There is no question that this property is part of a small community with some community facilities which may loosely be termed a village. It is however very much on the edge of that settlement, and new development would contribute to unacceptably extending the ‘village’ away from its albeit limited, natural centre. As a result because of the very wide, open nature of Bamfords car park the proposal would be less likely to constitute ‘infill’ and more likely to add to a small grouping which is detached from the settlement itself.
6.14. Whilst acknowledged that there is no NPPF definition of infill development, the Planning Portal – a Government website established in 2002, does offer some clarity by stating that ‘Infill development is the development of a relatively small gap between existing buildings’. Development does exist on either side of the proposal site, but as this plot is neither a small gap, nor in real terms ‘between’ existing buildings, – the closest to the east across open car park being 95m away, and does not complete an established row of earlier development, this proposal is not considered to conform to infill development in the truest sense. For the reasons stated in Para’s 6.8 and 6.9, caveat (e) is not thought to apply.
6.15. With regards to point (g), the 2017 Court of Appeal decision (Dartford v SOS EWCA Civ 141) found that private residential gardens which are not in a built-up area will constitute previously developed land (i.e. Brownfield land) within the NPPF. Thus, development of such land within the Green Belt will be excluded from general, restrictive Green Belt Policy provided such development would not have a greater impact on the openness of Green Belt than the existing development.
6.16. Officers are comfortable that in light of this decision, the proposal site does constitute previously developed land. Introduction however of a structure where none has previously been would undoubtedly, visually urbanises the site resulting in a loss of overall openness. This would be further exacerbated by domestic fencing and paraphernalia, and loss of views through the site, and as such it is considered that the proposal would not satisfy
5
Page 33 the exemption allowed by point (g) of the NPPF (as mirrored by exception (f) of Local Plan Policy G1).
6.17. A number of uses bound the site – the car park in the east, paintballing facility in the south and agricultural lands beyond the main property in the west, south and facing, but these are relatively low key in nature, preserve openness in visual terms, and in the case of the paintballing and agricultural uses are examples of appropriate Green Belt development.
6.18. Having discounted the aforementioned exemptions, and having regard to Committee’s earlier comments, the applicant seeks then to demonstrate that there are very special circumstances which outweigh any harm to the Green Belt and its openness. This justification is detailed and is summarised as follows:
6.19. Applicants Personal Health Needs – The applicant has supplied considerable detail with regards to a number of physical and health issues which affect her daily life and ability to function. Whilst for privacy reasons these remain confidential, your Officer is satisfied from the information supplied that the applicant will not be able to remain in the property as currently configured beyond the foreseeable future.
6.20. Redevelopment of existing property – A number of options to re-develop the existing property might be possible.
6.21. Assessment of the existing property has been undertaken by a qualified architect with regards to conversion to mobility use/access standards (Lindsay Oram, RIBA: LFO/03/265). Internal circulation space and doorways are not to an accessible standard, and considerable, structural and reconfiguration work to ground floor, load bearing walls would be required to allow for wholly ground floor living accommodation. The properties main bathroom is upstairs, and whilst a stair lift could be installed it is accessed via split stairway which again is not accessible. External access is ramped but is of steep gradient. In the architects opinion it is ‘fair to say that the more onerous adaptation required to meet Part M(Accessibility) of the Building Regulations certainly outweighs the possible benefits’
6.22. Notwithstanding problematic adaptation of the property, it is possible however for the applicant to extend the property or construct a ‘granny annex’. This would allow for ground floor living accommodation, whilst being within close proximity of, and retaining the two storey house for members of the family and any future carer. By doing so the applicant’s support system would remain intact, and development would be of lesser impact to the overall site as gardens, fencing, access and associated infrastructure would be combined rather than independent to each other. The applicant has provided no justification as to why this is not an option other than to say that it is not a policy requirement to consider alternative properties to rent or for sale, and that the personal financial statement submitted details why it is not possible to purchase a different property in the same area. The applicant has not at any time justified why the existing property cannot be extended.
6.23. Specialist Housing Need – In addressing specialist housing need Para’s 60 & 61 of the NPPF state that strategic policies should reflect current and future demographic trends, and that within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to older people and people with disabilities). Core Strategy Policy 7 (e) (Affordable and Special Needs Housing) considers the location of special needs and extra care housing whilst Policy 17 (j) (Design) (j) makes provision for the needs of special groups in the community such as the elderly and those with disabilities.
6.24. The Central Lancashire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMAA: Sept 2017) also states that ‘there is a clear need to increase the supply of accessible and adaptable dwellings and wheelchair user dwellings’. In seeking compliance with the mobility standards
6
Page 34 of Building Regulations Part M, the Council should also be ‘mindful that such homes could be considered as ‘homes for life’ and would be suitable for any occupant, regardless of whether or not they have a disability at the time of initial occupation’. The SHMAA identifies that South Ribble needs to supply 170 adaptable dwellings per 1000 people by 2034; this equates to 62 specialist new homes per year to be proportioned between market and affordable housing. The same document also notes that there are no private market, extra- care properties in South Ribble, and whilst permissions have been granted since 2017 (e.g. Wellington Park for 62 apartments) these will not be constructed for some time. The Council does not quantify a record of specialist houses constructed per annum.
6.25. In light of the Councils stance with regards to specialist housing provision, lack of evidence to clearly show that the annual ‘quota’ for development has been achieved, and the applicant’s personal circumstances, a decision to approve should be considered. Any approval granted however is likely to be because of these ‘very special’ circumstances and their need for specialist living accommodation as documented above. As such, a condition to restrict occupancy to the applicant, their dependants and/or partners is considered necessary. Although conditions are not permitted at the PIP stage of the application, an informative note is considered appropriate to the effect that a condition would be imposed at the Technical Details stage should permission be granted.
6.26. Duty of Care – The applicant also quotes Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which states that public authorities must have due regard to the desirability of advancing equality for, and in the interest and needs of those with a protected characteristic such as age or disability. Some, but not significant weight must be given to this point
6.27. The applicant refers to a number of appeals which have been taken into account1
7. Conclusion
7.1. Whilst the sites location is considered adequate but not wholly sustainable, development size and land use for the reasons stated above are not considered to be policy compliant. Development of an appropriate size could not be suitably accommodated within the site, and the proposal would result in unacceptable levels of harm to the Green Belt and its openness. It would also set a precedent whereby development of other, similar Green Belt sites would be difficult to refuse.
7.2. An argument has been made with regards to the evidenced need for specialist housing, and whilst the applicant can demonstrate why the existing property cannot be altered to accommodate long term health requirements, they have not provided any justification as to why the existing property could not be extended. The applicants health issues are a material planning consideration when assessing ‘very special circumstances’ but the financial constraints associated with development are not. In light of uncertainty surrounding the Councils five year supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development might be applied, but consideration should then be given to the reality of the sites location whose sustainability is at best only adequate.
7.3. Having regard to all material considerations it is considered that the very special circumstances of Green Belt development have not been demonstrated, and that the harm to the Green Belt and its openness caused by erection of a dwelling and ancillary works would clearly outweigh any benefits seen from the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy G1 (Green Belt) of the South Ribble Local Plan which should be given significant weight when assessing the ‘land use’ element of this proposal.
1 APP/3211000,2168348, 3164118, 3129411,3202040 7
Page 35 7.4. For the aforementioned reasons this application should be refused for the following reasons:
The proposal constitutes inappropriate land use in the Green Belt. The applicant has failed to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify the proposal which would harm the character and openness of the Green Belt contrary to Green Belt policy. In particular justification has not been provided as to why it is not possible to extend the existing property as an alternative to development of a new dwelling with associated infrastructure. The benefits of the scheme insufficiently outweigh the harm to that landscape. As such, the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and Policy G1 of the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026
The proposed development would result in an incongruous feature which if appropriately placed would result in overdevelopment of the site, and would be out of keeping with the immediate street scene to the detriment of to the character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026 and Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy 17
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal.
RELEVANT POLICY
National Planning Policy Framework
South Ribble Local Plan G1 Green Belt G17 Design
REASONS FOR REFUSAL:
1. The proposal constitutes inappropriate land use in the Green Belt. The applicant has failed to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify the proposal which would harm the character and openness of the Green Belt contrary to Green Belt policy. The benefits of the scheme insufficiently outweigh the harm to that landscape and as such, the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and Policy G1 of the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026
2. The proposed development would result in an incongruous feature which if appropriately placed would result in overdevelopment of the site, and would be out of keeping with the immediate street scene to the detriment of to the character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026 and Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy 17
8
Page 36 Agenda Item 9
Application Number 07/2019/7012/FUL
Address Land to Rear Asland & Brennand Close, Bamber Bridge
Applicant Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
Agent Mrs Sue Wood Network Rail
Development Erection of footbridge over railway line and 4m wide access track together with the formation of temporary compound and temporary 8m wide access track within Withy Grove Park (as previously approved by 07/2015/1536/FUL)
Officer Recommendation Approval with Conditions
Date application valid 17.01.19 Target Determination Date 14.03.19 Extension of Time None
1
Page 37 1. Report Summary
1.1. The application relates to an area of unused railway land to the north-east of Asland and Brennand Closes, Bamber Bridge. To the north of the track is Withy Grove Park, and to the south-west and south-east are areas of residential development. Mature woodland is present on both sides of the railway but more dense to the south. The site is designated by Policies G7 (Green Infrastructure) and G12 (Green Wedge/Green Corridor) of the South Ribble Local Plan.
1.2. The proposal seeks permission to erect a new footbridge, install temporary construction compound and access track, and screen fencing. Installation of the bridge would also enable closure of two railway, level crossings adjacent to the site.
1.3. Whilst the majority of trees would be retained, some would be lost to allow for development which would, other than for proposed access tracks, be restricted to unused land within or adjacent to the railway. As such loss of visual amenity would be limited. Trees in situ serve to screen properties on Brennand and Bleasdale Close from any loss of privacy, although the proposed footbridge would also benefit from louvre screening to stairs and main gantry.
1.4. Undoubtedly, replacement of the level crossing with a footbridge will restrict access to some users, but improvements to public safety must be carefully weighed against any overall harm caused. In this case it is considered that the safety benefits gained from replacement of the two level crossings with a footbridge does in fact outweigh any detriment to the environment, to neighbouring residents or to the provision of access for all. Installation of a cycle channel into the bridge also assists cyclists in line with the objectives of adopted policy to promote sustainable transport.
1.5. In policy and spatial separation terms the proposal is considered compliant, and having regard to the comments of statutory bodies and the above commentary, it is recommended that the application should be approved subject to the imposition of conditions
2. Application Site and Surrounding Area
2.1. The application refers to an area of railway land to the rear (north) of residential properties on Asland and Brennand Close, Bamber Bridge.
2.2. Currently there are two level crossings in this area– one known as ‘Playing Fields West’ (west of M6) and ‘Bradkirk Lane’ to the east of the M6. Playing Fields West links residential development with Withy Grove Park, whilst Bradkirk Lane links Walton Summit Industrial Estate with residential development of Brindle Road
2.3. Public Right of Way (PROW) 51 runs along the southern edge of the railway, whilst PROW53 skirts the northern railway siding. Council owned Withy Grove Park abuts the site in the north; existing access is possible to the level crossings through Withy Grove in the north, and from PROW51. A number of trees are also present along the northern side of the railway.
2.4. The site is designated by Policies G7 (Green Infrastructure) and G12 (Green Corridors/Wedges) of the South Ribble Local Plan.
3. Site Context / Planning History
3.1. There is one planning application on the history of this site. 07/2015/1536/FUL was approved by Planning Committee in December 2015 for erection of footbridge over railway
2
Page 38 line, 4m wide access track together with the formation of temporary compound and temporary 8m wide access track within Withy Grove Park.
3.2. This application expired in December 2018; the proposal to be determined being a replica of the approved scheme.
4. Proposal
4.1. Background: The applicants accompanying brief and diversity statements note that ‘there are approximately 6500 level crossings on Britain’s railways, comprising vehicular and/or pedestrian rights of way, and private crossings. Network Rail is committed to improving safety at level crossings, with efforts focussed on those that present the greatest risk. Where reasonably practical, our approach is to seek closure or diversion of crossings that have been identified as a higher risk including the crossings at ‘Playing Field West’ and Bradkirk Lane. The level crossing has a restricted warning time of 10 seconds for each direction of approaching train, and the project will provide safer access for vulnerable users such as children, the elderly and those with disabilities’.
4.2. The applicant seeks permission for erection of a railway footbridge, temporary access and construction compounds and protective fencing as previously approved by 07/2015/1536/FUL. This approach diverts users of both level crossings to the bridge which would be positioned east of the Playing Fields level crossing, would be more distant from residential properties and utilises vacant highways land.
4.3. A number of options have been explored, including an underpass, footbridge with ramps and installation of lifts, but each is problematic i.e. third party land ownership, risk of anti-social behaviour, and safety and security of on-site lifts. As the only other realistic alternative is complete closure of crossings in this location, the proposed bridge is considered the most pragmatic option.
4.4. The bridge would be 9.5m high, with stairways to both sides of the railway and connected by high level walkway/landing. The landing would be 2.4m deep x 14.6m long, and the structure when viewed from the side would be 16m wide. Sides of both stairs and landing would be screened by louvre screening to protect residential amenity, and a cycle channel would be installed alongside each stair to allow access to cyclists.
4.5. Mesh fencing would be installed along the northern side, whilst the southern edge would be protected by palisade fencing. The site compound would be located adjacent to the northern line and would cover an area of 50m x 55m.
4.6. The proposed temporary access from Withy Grove Park would be 8m wide x 160m in length, and constructed using track panels. This would reduce to a 4m wide x 100m long, stone path running around the eastern edge of the compound to provide access to the footbridge. The 8m access would be removed on completion of the development but the 4m path would be retained.
5. Summary of Supporting Documents
5.1. The application is accompanied by the following: Arboricultural Report & Impact Assessment (JCA 14610/PH: 7.12.18) Diversity Impact Assessment (Network Rail: 3.9.18) Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Pearce Environmental Ltd 23118MM: Nov 18) Supporting Statement (Network Rail: 16.1.19)
3
Page 39 Proposal Drawings Location Plan (79999(2): 26.19.18 Network Rail) Proposed Site Plan (W84336/L12/203 Rev A: Kier/Network Rail) Proposed General Arrangement Sheet 1 (W84336/L12/201 Rev G: Kier/Network Rail) Proposed General Arrangement Sheet 2 (W84336/L12/202 Rev C: Kier/Network Rail) Proposed Plans/Sections (W84336/L12/200 Rev F: Kier/Network Rail) Proposed Plans/Sections (W84336/L12/200 Rev F: Kier/Network Rail)
6. Representations
6.1. Summary of Publicity
6.1.1.A site notice has been posted, and 42 neighbouring properties consulted. Ward Councillor Higgins has also been notified
6.2. Letters of Objection or Support
6.2.1.None received
7. Summary of Responses
7.1. South Ribble Arborist has considered the applicants tree survey (JCA 14610/PH) and has no objections to the development; noting that post development planting would offer suitable mitigation
7.2. Lancashire County Council Highways has no objections to the proposal
7.3. Ecology Consultant has assessed the accompanying ecology survey and subject to precautionary conditions (reasonable avoidance measures, nesting birds and mitigation) are satisfied with the approach
7.4. Environmental Health have no objection
7.5. The Councils Estates/Parks Teams make the following comments – ‘as the parks land owner, we will be in discussion with the applicant regarding site access and replacement of removed trees etc. The site plan suggests that between points X-C-Y, a 4m stone access road will be left in situ following works. Improvement works to the park means that all access to the temporary compound is now to be via temporary trackway which is to be removed on completion of the works. The proposed scheme must include construction of a suitable width macadam surfaced link path (min 1.8m wide) between the park’s network and the new footbridge, specification and location of which are to be agreed with SRBC Neighbourhood Services’.
7.6. It is important to note that consent to develop on land from the landowner is not required before planning permission may be granted – permission may be granted by this Committee for development on land regardless of ownership or lack of consent, but it is the applicants responsibility to obtain such consent prior to commencement on site. Network Rail have been notified on a number of occasions of suggested amendments but have not responded and remain silent on the matter. It would therefore be up to them to enter into discussions with the Council as landowner at a later date, and where necessary to seek renewed or amended planning permission should access not be granted in the form proposed
7.7. Lancashire Constabulary and the Public Rights of Way Team have not responded. The Police only reply where they have the need to do so, and whilst Public Rights of Way
4
Page 40 would need to be diverted this would be a separate legal process which cannot prevent any grant of planning permission. There is no PROW over the railway line itself.
8. Material Considerations
8.1. Site Allocation Policy
8.1.1.The site is designated under policies G7 (Green Infrastructure) and G12 (Green Corridors) of the South Ribble Local Plan
8.1.2.Policy G7 seeks to protect and enhance existing Green Infrastructure. Development will not be permitted in areas allocated by this policy unless alternative provision of similar or better community facilities can be provided within the locality; or it can be demonstrated that the site is not required to satisfy a local recreational need. Developers should also demonstrate that the schemes public benefits would outweigh any loss of amenity or nature conservation value of the site.
8.1.3.Policy G12 is similar in its approach in that it seeks to protect the existing green corridor network in order to provide a buffer between urban areas. Development which would prejudice the open character and visual amenity of such areas will be restricted unless there are public benefits which outweigh the harm caused.
8.2. Additional Policy Background
Additional policy of marked relevance to this proposal is as follows:
8.2.1. National Planning Policy Framework (2018)
8.2.1.1. Para’s 95 and 98 respectively state that ‘Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety’ and ‘… protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users’.
8.2.2. Central Lancashire Core Strategy
8.2.2..1. Policy 3 (Travel) seeks to improve pedestrian facilities, opportunities for cycling and public transport through a number of measures
8.2.3. South Ribble Local Plan
8.2.3..1. Policies G13 (Trees, Woodland & Development) and G16 (Biodiversity/Nature Conservation) both seek to conserve and enhance the natural environment, and protect site biodiversity. G13 states that development will not be permitted where it affects trees and woodland, but where loss of non-protected trees is unavoidable this may be accepted where suitable mitigation is offered.
8.2.3..2. Policy G17 (Design) of the same document attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, requiring proposals to take account of the character, appearance and amenity of the local area, and to highways and pedestrian safety.
8.3. Other Material Considerations
8.3.1. Character and Appearance, and Impact Upon Neighbouring Properties
8.3.1..1. The proposal will replace two relatively untidy - albeit low key – level crossings with a large footbridge structure. The bridge has been designed however to blend as best as possible into the green background. It has also been placed in an open area adjacent to two 5
Page 41 densely populated areas so as to be distant from residential properties, whilst still offering passage over the rail line as existing.
8.3.1..2. The bridge would be visible from the rear of no’s 9-14 Brennand Close and 3-4 Bleasdale Close, but in the main these would be screened by existing, mature trees. PROW 51 is already present to the rear of these properties, and having regard to proposed louvre screening on the bridge, impact by virtue of overlooking, loss of privacy or general amenity to neighbouring residents is considered acceptable.
8.3.1..3. Views from Withy Grove Park would be limited, and whilst visually the compound would be significant, it would be a temporary measure only.
8.3.2.Highways and Access
8.3.2..1. As a pedestrian bridge, impact upon the highway would be negligible. Pedestrian access would remain via Public Rights of Way and through Withy Grove Park – a similar situation to that which already exists, and from a highways perspective the proposal is considered acceptable.
8.3.3. Natural Environment, Ecology and Ground Conditions
8.3.3..1. Trees – The applicants Tree Survey notes that of 38 items of vegetation (trees, hedge and group shrubbery), 8 trees and 3 small tree groups should be removed for development purposes. 4 no: trees are also identified for removal to prevent them becoming dangerous, but the report considers these offer only limited visual or amenity value. In light of the Councils Arborists comments proposed tree works are considered acceptable.
8.3.3..2. Site Ecology – survey considers that the site offers negligible bat roosting or amphibian habitat potential, but does offer good potential for bat foraging and commuting. Further surveys are not recommended but installation of a bat box is felt appropriate. Subject to appropriate conditions proposals to protect biodiversity of the site are acceptable.
9. Conclusion
9.1.1.Disturbance of the areas green space and loss of a minimum number of trees to accommodate development would, if the proposal is approved, be inevitable. Built development would however be restricted to unused land within or adjacent to the railway, with only low level access tracks and a temporary compound being provided within Withy Grove Park. The majority of trees bounding the site would be retained and visual disruption of the area would be limited.
9.1.2.Improvements to public safety must also be weighed against any harm caused, and in this case it is considered that replacement of the two level crossings with a footbridge does in fact outweigh any harm caused. Installation of a cycle channel into the bridge also assists cyclists in line with the objectives of adopted policy to promote sustainable transport.
9.2. In conclusion, in policy and spatial separation terms the proposal is considered compliant, and having regard to the comments of statutory bodies and the above commentary, it is recommended that the application should be approved subject to the imposition of conditions
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with Conditions.
6
Page 42 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and suite of documents: Arboricultural Report & Impact Assessment (JCA 14610/PH: 7.12.18) Diversity Impact Assessment (Network Rail: 3.9.18) Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Pearce Environmental Ltd 23118MM: Nov 18) Supporting Statement (Network Rail: 16.1.19) Proposal Drawings Location Plan (79999(2): 26.19.18 Network Rail) Proposed Site Plan (W84336/L12/203 Rev A: Kier/Network Rail) Proposed General Arrangement Sheet 1 (W84336/L12/201 Rev G: Kier/Network Rail) Proposed General Arrangement Sheet 2 (W84336/L12/202 Rev C: Kier/Network Rail) Proposed Plans/Sections (W84336/L12/200 Rev F: Kier/Network Rail) Proposed Plans/Sections (W84336/L12/200 Rev F: Kier/Network Rail) REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Local Plan 2012-2026 Policy G17
3. Development and post development planting shall be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of approved Arboricultural Report/Impact Assessment (JCA 14610/PH) in the first planting season following completion of the development, or first occupation/use, whichever is the soonest. The approved scheme shall be maintained by the applicant or their successors in title thereafter for a period of 5 years to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. This maintenance shall include the replacement of any tree or shrub which is removed, becomes seriously damaged, seriously diseased or dies, by the same species or different species, and shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The replacement tree or shrub must be of similar size to that originally planted. REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Policy G8 in the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026
4. Should the development not have commenced within 24 months of the date of this permission, a re-survey be carried out to establish whether bats or other protected species are present at the site shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified person or organisation. In the event of the survey confirming the presence of such species details of measures, including timing, for the protection or relocation of the species shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the agreed measures implemented. REASON: To ensure the protection of schedule species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and so as to ensure work is carried out in accordance with Policy 22 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Policy G16 in the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026
5. Development shall be undertaken in line with the recommendations of approved Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Pearce Environmental 231118MM: Nov 18) REASON: To ensure adequate provision is made for these protected species in accordance with Policy 22 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Policy G16 in the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026
7
Page 43 6. If the presence of bats, barn owls, great crested newts or other protected species is detected or suspected on the development site at any stage before or during development or site preparation, works must not continue until Natural England has been contacted regarding the need for a licence. REASON: To ensure that adequate provision is made for these protected species in accordance with Policy 22 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Policy G16 in the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026
7. No tree felling, clearance works, demolition work or other works that may affect nesting birds shall take place between March and August inclusive, unless the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed by surveys or inspections. REASON: To protect habitats of wildlife, in accordance with Policy 22 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy
8. A landscape restoration plan for the construction site and access route shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA, prior to commencement of development. The content of the plan should include details of British native tree species and shrubs to mitigate for loss of trees shrubs and bird nesting habitat. The planting shall be implemented in the first planting and seeding seasons following the commencement of the development or such extension of this time as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, or are removed or become significantly damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. REASON: In the interests of the amenity and appearance of the area and to ensure that adequate provision is made for protected species in accordance with Policy 17 and Policy 22 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Policy G13 and Policy G16 in the South Ribble Local Plan 2012-2026
9. Any construction works associated with the development shall not take place except between the hours of: 0800 hrs to 1800 hrs Monday to Friday and 0800 hrs to 1300 hrs Saturday No construction works shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority REASON: To safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents particularly with regard to the effects of noise in accordance with Policy 17 in the Central Lancashire Core Strategy
RELEVANT POLICY
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework Central Lancashire Core Strategy 3 Travel South Ribble Local Plan G7 Green Infrastructure Existing Provision G12 Green Corridors/Green Wedges G13 Trees, Woodlands and Development G17 Design Criteria for New Development
8
Page 44 Note:
Other application Informative 1. Attention is drawn to the condition(s) attached to this planning permission. In order to discharge these conditions an Application for Approval of Details Reserved by Condition form must be submitted, together with details required by each condition imposed. The fee for such an application is £116. The forms can be found on South Ribble Borough Council's website www.southribble.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, it is an offence to disturb nesting birds, roosting birds or other protected species. The work hereby granted does not override the statutory protection afforded to these species and you are advised to seek expert advice if you suspect that any aspect of the development would disturb any protected species
3. This permission does not automatically grant the right to access through, or develop within Withy Grove Park. You are advised to contact the Councils Park Department on 01772 625561 with regards to access arrangements.
4. This permission does not automatically grant the right to divert, close or make other alterations to any Public Right of Way. You are advised to contact Lancashire County Councils Public Rights of Way Team for further advice.
9
Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank