1089 24.4.2001 Development Control DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1089 24.4.2001 Development Control DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Sub-Committee held in the Council Chamber at South Lakeland House, Kendal, on Tuesday, 24 April 2001, at 10.30 a.m. Present Councillors C.C. Hodgson (Chairman) Mrs J.E. Jenkinson (Vice-Chairman) M.G. Alston P.E. Ball Mrs A.B. Barratt J.A. Blamire R.N. Bolton J.W. Curwen Mrs J. Ewing L. Hadwin Mrs P.H. Himsworth B. Jameson G. Jenkinson R. Leach W.H. Robinson B.J. Stainton Mrs B.E. Woof An apology for absence was received from Councillor R. Parker. 2197 MINUTES RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 27 March 2001. 2198 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RESOLVED – That it be noted that Councillors P.E. Ball, J.A. Blamire and R. Leach declared an interest in Minute Nos.2203 (Planning Application No.5/01/0557); 2207, 2208 and 2209; and 2200 (Planning Application No.5/01/0109) respectively. 2199 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS RESOLVED – That it be noted that there were no items in Part II of the Agenda. 2200 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RESOLVED – That the following application, for which representations have been received from members of the public, in accordance with Minute 1810 (1996/97), be determined in the following manner:- 5/01/0109 GRANGE-OVER-SANDS: Crag Bank, Grange Fell Road, Grange- over-Sands. Classroom block. (Conservation Area) (Mrs M. Ward) Councillor R. Leach declared an interest in this application and left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting. Mrs Freda Bradbury objected to the application on behalf of four residents in Highfield Road. She said that, in order to get to Grange Fell Road people needed to drive round and down a hill with bends in it which resulted in very poor visibility. Cars tended to be parked on the right hand side, and sometime both sides, of the road, and further traffic would exacerbate the situation. The parents of children attending Grange Primary School had expressed their concerns 1090 24.4.2001 Development Control regarding parking and traffic problems. The application had indicated a maximum of four staff and eight pupils using the proposed building. There had been no mention of cooking/domestic staff or visits from other agencies such as Social Services, the Education Authority, etc. Crag Bank was a business which had chosen to care for children who had serious problems; the proposed building would result in absolutely minimal space for children to play. Crag Bank had a responsibility to the children they care for to provide appropriate facilities. This being so, it appeared that a larger property was needed. Members were asked to note and support residents’ objections. Dr A. Sharpe spoke on behalf of himself and residents of Dearden Close. His property and the Dearden Close properties shared a long common boundary with Crag Bank. Their objections were not born out of middle-class snobbery or ignorance, but out of knowledge and experience of the former Riverside School. The great majority of his experience with Riverside had been negative, with noise and aggression on the part of the children. According to the OFSTED report, Riverside had been specialist in catering for children who had been rejected by other specialist schools, and he assumed that Appletree (Crag Bank) would be operating the same policy. He said it had been found that residential childcare was always the worst option; fostering was better and cheaper. The use of residential childcare had declined by 50%. These children had serious problems and it was unsuitable to bring them to a site such as Crag Bank with its restricted area of play. Because the children were on site all year round, all day every day, it was impossible not to create noise and disturbance. Mrs Ward responded that the current application had nothing to do with Riverside and that it was a different client group of children who would be using the building was mostly younger, at 6 – 10/11 years. There would be a much less intense use of the site with a maximum of eight children the aim was to provide better facilities to do the job. As far as the provision of play space was concerned, this was regulated by the Department of Education. It was appreciated that there had been additional traffic and car parking while the building was being converted, but this would cease once the renovations were complete. The Director of Amenities and Development read out a letter from Brian Barden, Planning Consultants, on behalf of the applicants, which stated that the use of the site was not subject to restrictions. The building as proposed was felt to be acceptable. Traffic and parking changes would result in very little difference., and the turning point could be improved. There would be additional traffic movement if the children had to be taken to another site for teaching. The close boarding fencing suggested by the Council was felt to be inappropriate, and the applicant wished to see the proposed wire mesh fencing retained. The applicants were also prepared to accept any non-residential conditions. The Director of Amenities and Development was concerned about the 1091 24.4.2001 Development Control impact a separate building would make on the site, which was rather tight. However, there was scope for an extension of the existing building which would provide a more managed approach, and avoid concentrating play space close to boundaries with neighbours. The applicants had indicated that they would prefer a separate building. Members considered that development on this extremely tight, restricted and sloping site would not be appropriate, and emphasised the need for a large play area for the children. It was also felt that in normal circumstances children would expect to leave their residence to go to the place where they were to be schooled. However, they would be prepared to reconsider the application on the strength of an extension to the existing building. REFUSED for the reason below:- An additional building of this scale and in this position would be over-intensive and unneighbourly and detrimental to the pleasant character of the area and would be liable to reduce the area of amenity land available to occupants on the site with consequential impact for surrounding occupiers. 5/01/0415 KENDAL: 113 – 119 Stricklandgate, Kendal. Change of use from A1 (retail) to A3 (food and drink). (Conservation Area) (Burleigh Estates Plc) Note – Councillor B.J. Stainton declared an interest in this item of business and left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting. Mr Colin Burrow spoke against the application on behalf of the Kendal and District Licences Victuallers Association. Members were asked to consider very carefully the implications of these larger business premises on existing licensed premises in the vicinity. It was felt that any employment benefits to the town might be negated by loss of jobs at existing licensed premises. There were also concerns regarding un/loading, parking and taxi pick-up at a site on the corner of Stricklandgate/Sandes Avenue, and the proximity of the proposed business to residential properties. It was felt that there would be congestion problems similar to the existing situation in Stricklandgate. While the Association were not opposed to healthy competition, they were concerned about the implications on existing licensed premises, cafés etc from a large organisation about whom very little was known and whose commitment to Kendal was uncertain. Members were requested to consider all aspects of the application very carefully. Mr C.R. Haigh of Haigh Architects spoke against the application on behalf of the First Church of Christ Scientist which was opposed to the change of use of the premises. He explained that the alleyway adjacent to the Church provided a right-of-way access to the rear of these two properties. He said that un/loading restricted the parking available to the Church and to Java (hairdressing business on Stricklandgate), whilst the traffic flow in Sandes Avenue was restricted when vehicles needed to back into the alleyway. These 1092 24.4.2001 Development Control were the two main issues. It was felt that the situation would be exacerbated with the introduction of two-way traffic flow later in the year. In addition, there appeared to be no provision for car parking and it was felt that this would encourage illegal use of the Church car parking facilities. In the past the alleyway had been abused by drunks and others. This had been discouraged by the diligence of the Church Warden and the Church did not want to see the situation reversed. Also, taxis used the front of the Church as a drop-off point. The proposed use would change the character of the vicinity, and it was felt that this was against Policy R11 of the Council’s development policies. Speaking on behalf of the applicants, Mr K. Walsingham said that this application was for change of use only and other applications would be submitted to cover details. This would be one of a chain of Burleigh Restaurants, providing restaurant/café/bar facilities. He pointed out that the Director of Engineering had raised no objections to loading/unloading. Each week there would be daily deliveries of fresh food, in the early morning, and two deliveries of other items. This was felt to be less than the number of deliveries at present. The existing shops would continue to have right of way. As far as car parking was concerned, Mr Walsingham quoted Policy PPG13 which recommended no parking on individual premises within town centres, but on town centre car parks.