Committee: PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS REGULATORY COMMITTEE

Date: MONDAY, 7 TH JUNE 2010

Venue: LANCASTER TOWN HALL

Time: 10.30 A.M.

A G E N D A

Apologies for Absence

1 Appointment of Vice-Chairman

2 Minutes of the Meeting held on 10th May 2010 (previously circulated)

3 Items of Urgent Business authorised by the Chairman

4 Declarations of Interest

Planning Applications for Decision

Community Safety Implications

In preparing the reports for this Agenda, regard has been paid to the implications of the proposed developments on Community Safety issues. Where it is considered the proposed development has particular implications for Community Safety, this issue is fully considered within the main body of the report on that specific application.

Category A Applications

Applications to be dealt with by the District Council without formal consultation with the County Council.

5 A5 10/00185/CU Castle View Caravan Park, Kellet Ward (Pages 1 - 5) Borwick Road, Capernwray

Change of use of land for extension to existing caravan park, erection of an office building, provision of a new treatment plant and reed bed pond for Mr John McCarthy

6 A6 09/01015/CU 4 Old Station Yard, Kirkby Upper Lune (Pages 6 - Lonsdale, Carnforth Valley 14) Ward

Retrospective application for use of land and buildings for stoneworking, storage and distribution (B2/B8 use) and retention of an open-fronted workshop building for Fairhurst Stone

7 A7 10/00192/RCN Hale Carr Caravan Park, Hale Carr Heysham (Pages 15 - Lane, Heysham Central 18) Ward

Removal of conditions on applications 2/2/3536, 84/1172 and 97/1194 which limit the occupancy to gypsies or travellers only and which will allow for unrestricted occupancy and siting of static caravans for Mr N Staples

8 A8 10/00271/FUL Toll Bar Garage, 168 Scotforth Scotforth (Pages 19 - Road, Lancaster West Ward 23)

Extension of time limit on application 07/01666/FUL for demolition of existing garage, redevelopment and construction of residential apartments (29 x 2 bed and 5 x 1 bed), associated car parking, landscaping and engineering operations for Mr Trevor Ingram

9 A9 10/00316/RCN Letter Box Field, Ford Lane, Silverdale (Pages 24 - Silverdale Ward 27)

Removal of condition 4 on application 08/00937/FUL relating to details of the new stone wall and access for Mr T and Mrs M Mackintosh

10 A10 10/00131/FUL 1 The Headlands, Heysham, Heysham (Pages 28 - Morecambe South 30) Ward

Erection of a two storey extension to the rear including the creation of a balcony for Mr Mike Wolff

11 A11 10/00087/FUL 5 The Headlands, Heysham, Heysham (Pages 31 - Morecambe South 33) Ward

Erection of single storey extensions to form new conservatory, garage and sitting room for Shaun Whatmuff

12 A12 10/00306/OUT Nightingale Hall, Quernmore Bulk Ward (Pages 34 - Road, Lancaster 40)

Extension of time limit on application 06/00661/OUT for the redevelopment of the site for residential use for Fats and Proteins UK Ltd (Mr Edmund Metcalfe)

13 A13 10/00243/FUL Booths, Scotland Road, Carnforth Carnforth (Pages 41 - Ward 47)

Erection of an extension to rear of existing Supermarket for Mr Graham Booth

Category D Application

Application for development by a District Council.

14 A14 10/00152/DPA Town Hall, Dalton Square, Duke's (Pages 48 - Lancaster Ward 50)

Listed building application for renewal of rainwater goods for Lancaster City Council

15 Enforcement Update - Low Mill, Caton-with-Littledale (Pages 51 - 55)

Report of Head of Regeneration and Policy

16 Delegated Planning Decisions (Pages 56 - 63)

ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

(i) Membership

Councillors Eileen Blamire (Chairman), Ken Brown, Keith Budden, Anne Chapman, Chris Coates, John Day, Roger Dennison, Sheila Denwood, Mike Greenall, Emily Heath, Helen Helme, Andrew Kay, Geoff Marsland, Joyce Pritchard, Robert Redfern, Peter Robinson, Bob Roe, Sylvia Rogerson, Roger Sherlock and Peter Williamson

(ii) Substitute Membership

Councillors Jon Barry, Abbott Bryning, John Gilbert, Janice Hanson, Tony Johnson, Ian McCulloch, Keith Sowden, Joyce Taylor, Malcolm Thomas and Paul Woodruff

(iii) Queries regarding this Agenda

Please contact Jane Glenton, Democratic Services, telephone (01524) 582068 or, alternatively, email [email protected]

(iv) Changes to Membership, substitutions or apologies

Please contact Members’ Secretary, telephone (01524) 582170 or, alternatively, email [email protected].

MARK CULLINAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, TOWN HALL, DALTON SQUARE, LANCASTER, LA1 1PJ

Published on Wednesday, 26 th May 2010 Page 1 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 5

A5 7 June 2010 10/00185/CU

Application Site Proposal

Castle View Caravan Park Change of use of land for extension to existing caravan park, erection of an office building, provision Borwick Road of a new treatment plant and reed bed pond

Capernwray

Carnforth

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr John McCarthy Mr C Holmes

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

10 May 2010 Committee Cycle

Case Officer Mr Andrew Holden

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval subject to conditions

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is located off Borwick Road, close to its junction with Borron Lane, Capernwray. The site lies alongside land currently developed as a static caravan site known as Castle View Caravan Park. This site shares an access from Borwick Road which splits to serve The Glade Caravan Park to the north and Castle View Caravan Park to the west. Both sites are in the ownership of the applicant, Mr McCarthy.

1.2 The site is part of an extensive area of land owned by the applicant including an equine centre to the north of the application site and extensive areas of woodland to the east and south of the site. The approach to the site is relatively level with o pen pasture to either side of the main entrance road. Open pasture lies to the north of the site but this is outside the ownership of the applicant. Land to the south of the site rises steeply and until recently was clad in maturing deciduous woodland. Large areas of this woodland have now been felled leading down to the southern boundary of application site. Blocks of tree planting lie to the north of the site on the other side of the main access road into Castle View Caravan Park.

1.3 The main application site itself is bounded to the east and south by a narrow belt of tree planting with strips of tree planting running across the site. The land was used for the commercial growing of Christmas trees, this has now ceased and some trees remain within the plot. To the north of the site lays a block of woodland close to the access road and rising ground to the south.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application seeks consent for three separate elements all of which are inter-related:

a. Change of use of land for the extension of the existing static caravan site; b. Erection of an office building; and, c. Provision of a new packaged treatment plant and associated reed bed pond. Page 2

2.2 The change of use of the land relates mainly to a rectangular area of land to the south of the access road. Following discussion with the agent the site is proposing the siting of a total of 31 static caravans, associated car parking, landscaping and amenity area. The caravan site extension also includes a narrow strip of land to the north of the access road which will accommodate five of the 31 units and the new office building.

2.3 The office building is located at the junction of the access road serving The Glade and Castle View, the proposal is to replace a small office in the centre of the Castle View site and develop a new larger office building to act as reception, office and security in connection with the two sites but also provide for additional upper floor office accommodation in connection with the management of the other caravan sites owned by the applicant (four others in the Carnforth area). The office is a single storey building with additional accommodation in the roof space. The materials are to be local stone plinth with rendered walls under a natural slate roof.

2.4 The new sewage treatment plant and associated reed bed pond is to be located at the northern end of the complex close to The Glade Caravan Park. Currently there is no mains drainage to either The Glade and Castle View and are currently treated by a series of septic tanks. The treatment plant will take flows form Castle View park and the adjacent equine centre at Blackholme Farm. Flows from The Glade septic tank will be directed into the reed bed for further cleansing and a wild life pond.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has a long planning history dated back over 30 years. The most recent and pertinent applications are listed below.

Application Number Proposal Decision 96/00613/CU C/U of lad to form extension to existing holiday park for an Approved Mar 1997 additional 12 caravans. 98/01157/FUL Modification to condition No 3 on 75/01167 to extend Approved Dec 2001 season to ten and half months 99/00533/CU C/C land for the siting of 12 static caravans Approved Dec 2001

02/01090/FUL Siting of six holiday chalets and c/u to touring caravan Approved Nov 2002 area 04/01251/CU C/U part of site for the siting of eight log cabins to place of Approved Jul 2005 nine touring caravans. 08/1327/CU C/U from 19 touring pitches to 17 static pitches Approved Jan 2009

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response County Highways At 38 static pitches, this application is a significant extension to the existing caravan site and will result in additional car movements to and from the site. General concerns that incremental increases in capacity at this and other nearby sites will lead to an increase in traffic along both Capernwray and Borwick Roads, eventually leading to a situation which could be detrimental to highway safety.

However they consider it difficult to justify an objection, given that the use is for static caravans rather than tourers, but they do ask if consideration could be given to limiting future caravan site extensions in the vicinity.

Amended Plans – 28 th April: Notes that the number of units has been reduced slightly – this is welcomed in highway terms. The applicant has also indicated two mobility spaces in the car parking areas and this is acceptable. The applicant appears not to have shown any cycle storage facility for the office building and I would Page 3 continue to recommend some ought to be provided. Suggested condition in respect of cycle and car parking provision.

Environmental No objection subject to applicant obtaining caravan site licence. Health Tree Protection The site is a former plantation of evergreen trees. There are no tree preservation Officer orders affecting trees within the site which is also outside any conservation areas.

A total of a single individual tree and 8x groups of trees have been identified. Species include pine, Douglas fir, spruce, and a single group of broadleaf trees including goat willow, ash and hawthorn.

Generally, many of the tree within the site are of poor aesthetic appearance and are of poor overall form with limited useful remaining life potential. However, they do provide some valuable screening between mobile homes. They also contribute to the local wildlife resource. However, significant improvements could be made in terms of amenity and wildlife value with the gradual phasing out of the poorest, lowest value trees and the introduction of a greater diversity of native, broadleaf species.

Recommendations:

1. Agree to the removal of trees within group G2 to create access; and G7 to accommodate the development proposals. 2. Agree to the gradual phasing out of trees identified as G3, G4 & G5 over a 5- year period; - a plan must be agreed in writing within an overall management scheme for the site to include a detailed landscape scheme and maintenance regime for a minimum period of 5years post planting of the last trees. 3. Tree protection measures to be implemented in full in compliance to AIA affecting T1, G6, G8, G9 remainder G2, and G3, G4 & G5 until a plan for their phased removal and replacement is agreed.

Environment Views awaited. Agency Parish Council No objections to the original or amended application.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 To date a single letter has been submitted raising concerns over thee felling of a substantial number of mature trees above the site. A further suggestion has been made that the complainants’ land which adjoins the application site could be developed in preference and with less impact than the current application site.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Lancaster District Local Plan

Saved policy E4 – Allows for development tin the countryside which is in scale and keeping and is appropriate to in terms of scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscape. it must also make satisfactory provision for access and servicing.

Saved policyT06 – Allows for the small scale expansion of existing site providing that they demonstrate improvement to on-site facilities and/or landscaping and that there are no adverse effects upon surrounding countryside or neighbours.

6.2 Lancaster District Core Strategy

Policy SC5 - Achieving Quality in Design and seeks to ensure that development in the rural areas improve the quality of development

ER6 – Seek to maximise the potential of tourism to regenerate the local economy, directing Page 4 development in the countryside towards agricultural diversification and small scale sensitively designed accommodation.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 As indicated earlier in the report the proposal is seeking to develop a number of different elements which are directly related to each other. The main element of the application is the change of use to expand the area of the site and the number of static pitches. The land in agricultural in use having until relatively recently been used for the commercial growing of Christmas trees. The land is now unused and the remaining trees within the plot are past commercial use.

7.2 The site expands the caravan site area that is low lying but grades into the lower section of hillside which lies to the south of the main site. The topography aids screening of the site from the south but it will be partially visible from more distant views off Borwick Road when descending from the south. The original proposal sought to maintain a narrow belt of trees along the eastern boundary in addition to maintaining some of the evergreen trees within the plot to help break up the layout of the site. A new belt of planting is to be introduced on the southern boundary and the internal evergreen trees replaced with a phased replanting of deciduous trees. The original submission sought to develop the plot more intensively with 38 units.

7.3 Following discussion with the agent the overall numbers of units has been reduced to 31 and an amenity area introduced in there place. An additional belt of tree planting is also proposed of the eastern boundary to supplement the narrow tree belt and further aid screening of longer views of the site.

7.4 Policy T06 seeks to allow for the small scale expansion of existing site providing that they demonstrate improvement to on-site facilities and/or landscaping and that there are no adverse effects upon surrounding countryside or neighbours. It is considered that the expansion of the site is at the larger end of a small scale expansion with the overall number of units rising from 100 to 131 plus a single warden unit. However, it is proposed to introduce a major upgrade to foul water treatment serving this site, the neighbouring caravan site and the adjoining equestrian centre at Blackholme Farm with its associated capital outlay. This upgrade is regarded as a marked improvement of the current arrangement which is in practice a series of small septic tanks which have been introduced as part of the stepped expansion of the site. Conditions could be attached to a consent which precluded occupation of any of the proposed units until all the foul sewage treatment upgrades have been undertaken. In addition the proposal introduces additional screen planting and a further amenity area for the use of all residents.

7.5 The overall layout of the extended site is generous in relation to industry minimum standards and allows for the introduction of separate pedestrian walkways through the site and the retention of many of the evergreen trees to help break up the site. It is considered that the proposal will have a limited impact within the wider landscape and screening will be enhanced over time by the introduction of additional tree planting and accords with development plan policy.

7.6 The new office building is to replace the existing smaller office sited in the heart of the Castle View park. The old office having been developed many years ago to serve only the Castle View site. This location is no longer practical for the management of Castle View and The Glade sites which are now both in the ownership of the applicant. The original office is a substantial building and it is the future intention of the applicant to seek planning consent for the conversion of the office into an additional holiday unit should this application be successful. The location of the new office building is to be at the intersection of the access roads serving the two caravan sites to act as reception, office and security in connection with the two sites. The size of the office has a larger footprint than a static unit but is to be constructed of vernacular materials and design. The office is considered to be appropriate in it location and form and will also provide accommodation for the management of the whole of the applicants caravan operation, six sites in total around the Carnforth area.

7.7 A small car parking area is also to constructed providing 12 spaces, the spaces will be available to visitors to the caravan site and a small number of employees associated with the office building.

Page 5 8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None affecting this proposal given new landscaping being introduced

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Overall, it is considered that the development is one which is compatible to this rural location and accords with planning policy. Subject to appropriate condition to control the use of the site, the implementation of the foul treatment scheme and the introduction/improvement of tree planting the application should be supported.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit 2. Development to be built in accordance with the approved plans 3 Amended plan – Reducing the units to 31 in total 4 Amended plan - additional tree planting to the eastern boundary 5 Holiday accommodation – Duration of stay 6 Holiday accommodation – Provision of Bound Register 7 Holiday accommodation – Caravans 8 Holiday accommodation – Period of occupancy, season limited 1 st March to 15 January (inclusive) the following year 9 The occupation of the new units to be allowed only on development and operation of the foul treatment plant and reed bed. 10. Numbers of units within the application limited to 31 units – giving a total of 131 plus a single warden unit for the site as a whole 11. Phasing out of trees identified as G3, G4 & G5 over a 5-year period; - a plan to be agreed in writing within an overall management scheme for the site to include a detailed landscape scheme and maintenance regime for a minimum period of 5years post planting of the last trees. 12. Tree protection measures to be implemented in full in compliance to the Arboricultural Impact Assessment affecting T1, G6, G8, G9 remainder G2, and G3, G4 & G5 until a plan for their phased removal and replacement is agreed. 13. Details of the external materials of the office to be agreed. 14. Provision of car parking areas 15. Cycle storage details to be agreed

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 6 AgendaAgenda Item Item 6 Committee Date Application Number

A6 7th June 2010 09/01015/CU

Application Site Proposal

4 Old Station Yard Retrospective application for use of land and buildings for stone working, storage and distribution (B2/B8 Kirkby Lonsdale use) and retention of an open-fronted workshop building Carnforth

Lancashire

LA6 2HP

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Fairhurst Stone Mrs Miranda Barnes

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

18 December 2009 Continued assessment of proposal and site visit deferral

Case Officer Karl Glover

Departure No

Refusal – subject to Committee agreeing Summary of Recommendation Enforcement Process.

(i) Procedural Matters

The application was deferred from the Planning Meeting on the 19 th April 2010 to enable consideration to be given to case law relating to the practicality of imposing conditions in retrospective cases such as this, and further investigation into the proposed site arrangements.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The site is located at the northern end of the Old Station Yard industrial area, to the South of Kirkby Lonsdale and the west of the A65. The industrial estate is bounded by a high bund with semi-mature screen planting on all sides except the South and is surrounded on all sides by open, undulating Countryside.

1.2 There are two residential properties adjacent to the southern end of the estate close to the estate road entrance and a further residential property to the east of the estate mid way up its length, separated by a narrow fields and access from Long Level (the old Roman Road running north/south to the estate).

1.3 The estate is accessed from a cul-de-sac section of former A65 road which has a good junction with the present A65.

1.4 The Unit 4 site presently contains a large existing and approved two storey building at the south end which now houses manufacturing/stone cutting processes on the ground floor with offices on the first floor of the western end of the building. A small open fronted building is located adjacent to the Page 7 eastern side of the site and there are a number of externally located stone saws, rock tumbler and finishing machines, generally located along the eastern side of the site.

1.5 Virtually the whole open area of the site is occupied by either large mounds of uncut stone or pallets of finished product awaiting delivery, to the extent that little space is left for vehicle turning or parking. This has resulted in much parking or articulated lorries, trailers and stone skips (both loaded and unloaded) on the estate road and the reversing of articulated lorries from the old A65, along the estate road to the site.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 This proposal is a retrospective application for the use of the land and buildings at plot 4 for the storage, working and distribution (B2/B8) of stone and stone products and the retention of an unauthorised open fronted workshop building backing onto the west side of the plot.

2.2 These activities began in February 2004 as a stone storage and distribution business. This was expanded in 2005 to include the stone working and cutting activities, mainly within the existing buildings, and in November 2008 the open fronted workshop was erected. The present use has therefore been taking place on this to some degree for 6 years and now employs over 20 local people.

2.3 The business operates from 07:00 to 17:30 Monday to Friday, 07:00 to 1200 Saturday and not at all on Sunday.

2.4 The processes and activities involve the following:-

a) The importation of stone flags from the applicant’s quarries, for storage in large, pallets and distribution when required using large HGV’s. b) The importation of large rocks from the quarries for storage and transfer to the processing plant as required. c) The transfer of the rocks by JCB to the processing plant either within the building or externally where it is washed and cut using fixed saw equipment. d) The cut stone is then transferred to the open fronted building to be cropped and finished used fixed machinery including a stone tumbler. Or cut and polished by hand held equipment. e) The finished products are then either stored in pallets using fork lifts or transported to the skips using tipper trucks.

2.5 As part of this application, the applicant proposes to re-configure the open yard area to create more useable circulation space and room for the turning and loading of large HGV’s and the parking of skips.

3.0 Site History

3.1 Members will note that this is a retrospective application and has been submitted following complaints, investigation by the Planning Control Section and discussions with the applicants and their agents. A detailed explanation of how events have unfolded is provided at paragraphs 3.5-3.9. Members must note that under immunity rules, a breach of planning controls relating to a use of land becomes lawful if it does not take enforcement action within ten years.

3.2 This site and estate were formerly the Kirkby Lonsdale Station Yard and continued to be used as a haulage and transport depot after the closure of the railway line.

96/00135/FUL - Permission was granted in 1996 for the erection of 4 industrial units and associated access road and landscaping. This permission limited the use of the estate generally to light industrial (B1) and storage (B8) uses and specifically limited unit 4 (this application site) to “Haulage store and workshop and trailer park, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority” . The permission also removed permitted development rights in relation to building extensions without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

This permission was implemented in accordance with its conditions and forms the basis of the Page 8 current development. However, over the years the occupiers of these units have changed a number of times, nature of their uses have also changed and most have had subsequent extensions to the original buildings. All of the building extensions except the new building on plot 4 have received planning consent. The uses of the adjoining industrial/ commercial sites are generally in accordance with the approved consents.

3.3 It is perhaps worth noting recent history in relation to Unit 3. This was granted consent (Ref: 98/00988/CU) for its change of use from light industry and storage to agricultural engineering (including steel fabrications), which is clearly a General Industrial (B2) use. This permission was subject to a raft of conditions to limit its impact on its surroundings and local residents, including no outside working and your officers are not aware that the subsequent application for this unit, have given rise to any complaints from local residents to date. The precedent for the use of parts of the site for general purposes has clearly therefore been established.

3.4 There is a current separate enforcement enquiry regarding the alleged use of one if the units as a brewery but this should not affect the consideration of this current application.

3.5 The Retrospective Nature of the Application

This application relates principally to the unauthorised change of use of a haulage depot to a stone working, storage and distribution yard. The unauthorised use apparently commenced in February 2004 with stone storage and distribution, and was then expanded in 2005 to include stone working and cutting activities. An additional open fronted workshop building was erected in November 2008, without planning consent and over these years the unplanted inner face of the screen mound surrounding the west, north and east sides of the site has been eaten into to create additional storage areas. The ten year immunity period starts with the use commencing, not the start of the period of complaints.

3.6 While your officers were aware that the use of the site had changed to stone storage and distribution they were not aware that the nature of use had widened to include stone working and cutting (which is a B2 general industrial use) until receiving formal complaints at the end of 2008. Investigations revealed that the level of activity had outgrown the capacity of the existing buildings and yard area which resulted in storage and work being undertaken on the site access road. Stone cutting had been introduced and a new building and plant had been erected.

3.7 After a number of site visits/meetings with the site operator your officers considered that the operation of the site at that time was giving rise to significant environmental impacts and detriment to neighbouring amenities and that it was now in the public interests to take appropriate action.

3.8 However, given the history of the use, which until relatively recently occurred without such impacts and given its proportionate high level of local employment (23 full time jobs), the business was invited to consider ways to reduce the level of activity and the impacts currently generated to levels which cease to have a detrimental impact on neighbouring occupiers (residential and commercial) and to seek to regularise the use on that basis and subject to those limitations.

3.9 This application therefore seeks to establish those parameters and an enforceable regime of controls and requirements designed to achieve them.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received:

Consultees Response County Council Concerned about skip parking on the access road. A control is required to the effect Highways that no commercial activities associated with the use of this site shall take place outside the site curtilage. Conditions are also required to provide and retain the proposed skip storage area, vehicle turning space and car parking spaces.

Page 9 Environmental Had initially recommended refusal due to the inadequate assessment of noise impacts Health submitted with the application.

Further assessment has taken place following a number of site visits, and on 8 February the Service confirms that the business appears to be operating to a much more acceptable standard than previously. Suitable conditions on their operations would allow them operate with minimal impact upon nearby residential properties.

Contaminated Land No comments. Officer Parish Council No objections - Noise and dust seem to be well under control.

Environment A site meeting had taken place on site with the Environment Officer to discuss issues Agency which had arisen prior to the previous planning committee. As a result of this meeting it was determined that the yard area has been improved at the applicant's considerable expense following previous discussions with the EA. The EA had requested some small improvements to prevent excess silt being displaced from the site to the road drains, but the applicant quickly acted and exceeded the EA's requirements by concreting over the yard. This has prevented over spill of silt and mud which was dragged down the access road as a result of vehicles entering and exiting the site. It was also explained by the applicant that a front mounted implement was used to sweep the yard as and when it was required. It was suggested that a programme to dedicate regular sweeps would be more acceptable however not necessary as the 'ad hoc' system in place was seen to be sufficient.

It was also discussed that the outflow pipe to the Klargester sewage plant located in the field to the west towards the local beck was broken; this is not affecting the sewage treatment plant, the only difference being that the treated sewage effluent is filtering through the land towards the beck rather than discharging directly into the beck.

There is some naturally occurring surface water scum in the beck; this is not attributed to the applicant's business as it is also found upstream of the application site. As such there is not seen to be any further detrimental impact on the watercourse as a result of the retrospective use of the stone yard.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Seven lengthy letters have been received from two addresses objecting to the regularising of the present unauthorised use of this site along with a more recent objection from a further nearby property whose concerns have not previously been received at the last committee meeting.

The principle objections have been submitted for the following reasons:-

• This site is part of a very large and long established business with premises and quarries elsewhere and is rapidly expanding leading to intolerable HGV traffic to and from this site and parking on the adjacent highways and access roads.

• Scale of the present use exceeds the capacity of the site to accommodate it, resulting in nose to tail parking along the entire length of the access roads. As a result of this parking obstruction, all traffic in and out of the units is forced into one lane; and because of the narrowness of that single land and the restricted size of the Unit 4 yard, large and heavily- loaded stone wagons have to pull into the stopped-up old A65 road, reverse backwards round a blind corner, manoeuvre warily into the single available lane and reverse alarms wailing, all the way up to the stone yard so that they can unload from the back of the wagon and come out forwards. Traffic wanting to pass the obstruction has to wait outside the dwellings; others proceed knowing full well that an approaching forty-ton wagon dictates its own priority. The obstruction of the left hand lane often means that wagons delivering goods to other units, Mortimer’s in particular, are unable to swing round into the reception yard and are forces to unload their goods on the one-land road outside, so that that lane, too, is blocked until the unloading is completed.

Page 10 • One of the neighbours cites a recent application by Fairhursts to Craven District Council to develop a similar facility on a nine acre site near Bentham. As part of the supporting evidence for that application the applicants put forward the following points:-

• The company has outgrown its present premises (at Kirkby Lonsdale Station) and there is no possibility of expansion; • The existing site has inadequate external storage areas, the building is too small for stone-cutting and facilities for staff are again inadequate; • The existing site cannot meet the demands for the products the company supplies and new premises are desperately require to meet the demand and to further expand the company.

This application was refused on the grounds of its unacceptable environmental impact.

• Submitted noise assessment reports were clearly based on favourable recording conditions. The reality of the unremitting shriek of the saws, the noise of machinery and plant, the thunderous bangs of rocks being dropped and moved, the wail of vehicle alarms and the constant coming and going of ton after ton of stone suggest that somewhere in the production of these comfortable conclusions some adjustments have been made.

• On average 7 to 8 very large wagons access this site per day, each loafed with over 20 tons of stone, which causes considerable visual impact as well as noise nuisance and congestion on the roads.

• Road damage and very loud noise from heavy wagons and dragging skips along the surface of the old A65 to the site.

• Inadequate drainage

• Surrounding screen mounds are being removed from the inside to leave an inadequate and

unstable land form.

• The company has alternative premises on which to locate.

• Loud noise nuisance from the outside circular stone saw and rock tumbler and the tipping of large stones from lorries on to the ground.

• Constant sound of vehicle reversing warnings.

• Work generally commences at 06:00 and finishes at 19:00 however lorries have arrived at the site as late as 23:00 and left the site as early at 04:00.

• Inadequate car parking for staff numbers involved. All staff arrive on their own by car.

• Mud on all roads in wet weather and clouds of dust from lorries in dry weather.

• Photographic evidence has been provided showing heavy wagons, cement mixers and additional heavy loading equipment most of which have been taken over a period of different dates.

5.2 This is a relatively brief overview of the main and most salient points of the objections that affect the planning decision.

The unauthorised use of this site for the purpose proposed also has a substantial history of enforcement complaints prior to submission of this application, siting similar issues.

Page 11

6.0 Development Plan Policy

6.1 National Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS)

National Planning Policy as laid down in Planning Policy Statements (PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and Noise) is relevant to the consideration of this application. In particular:-

• PPS1 paragraph 19 suggests that planning authorities should seek to enhance the environment as part of development proposals. Significant adverse impacts on the environment should be avoided and alternative options pursued. Where such impacts are unavoidable, mitigation measures should be considered.

• PPS 4, Policy EC6 (Planning for Economic Development in Rural Areas) suggests that LPA’s should ensure that the countryside is protected for the sake of its intrusive character and beauty, the diversity of its landscape, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and to ensure it may be enjoyed by all to this and, economic development in open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled.

• Previously paragraphs 4, 5, 17 and 18 of PPS 7 – relating to the location of development and the re-use of buildings in the countryside – would have been applicable but these paragraphs have since been replaced by the provisions of PPS4.

• PPG18, Enforcement: Paragraph 12 advices Local Planning Authorities on how to deal with unauthorised development which have no realistic prospect of being relocated. Local Planning Authority’s should make it clear to owners or occupiers that they are not prepared to allow operations to continue at present levels and indicate timescales within which actually would stop or be reduced to acceptable levels. Agreement on modified levels is preferable but the paragraph legitimises the use of enforcement notices to secure a reduced level of activity.

• PPG24 Paragraph 10 states that much of the development which is necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and improvement of essential infrastructure will generate noise. The planning system should not place unjustifiable obstacles in the way of such development. Nevertheless, local planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. They should also bear in mind that a subsequent intensification or change of use may result in greater intrusion and they may wish to consider the use of appropriate conditions.

6.2 Local Planning Policies

This site is located within a small but long established commercial/industrial estate, formerly a railway station goods yard. The estate is covered buy the blanket ‘Countryside’ designation of the ‘Saved’ Proposals map to the Lancaster District Local Plan and Saved Policy E4 (The Countryside area) of that plan. The site itself is not specifically identified in the plan.

Saved Policy E4 requires development in the countryside area to be; in scale and keeping with the scale and natural beauty of the landscape; appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscaping; to have no significant adverse effect on nature conservation or geological interests and; to have satisfactory access, servicing and parking arrangements.

Lancaster District Core Strategy Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) seeks to ensure that new development proposals are as sustainable as possible, minimise greenhouse gas emissions and are adaptable to the likely effects of Climate Change and sets out a range of criteria against which proposals should be assessed.

Core Strategy Policy SC3 (Rural Communities) seeks to build healthy sustainable communities by Page 12 empowering rural communities to develop local vision and identity, identify and meet local needs and manage change in the rural economy and landscape, but essentially seeks to focus development on villages identified as having fire essential services. Development outside these settlements will require exceptional justification.

Core Strategy Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) seeks to safeguard and enhance the Districts environment by a range of measures which include; resisting development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and public amenity and; directing development to locations where previously developed land can re recycled and reused.

7.0 Comments and Analysis

7.1 In an attempt to achieve the regularising of the existing use of the site and the open fronted work shelter, the proposals also include, as mitigation:

• The reorganisation of the yard layout to create specific areas for the parking of all skips on site and for the turning and manoeuvring of articulated lorries within the site together with dedicated circulation routes around the yard for the stone handling vehicles;

• The tipper trailers that previously moved the boulders from the lorries to the yard floor have been replaced by flat wagons that lift as appeared to drop the stones. These should prevent the land, dropping noises experienced by neighbours and will be retained;

• The stone tumbler, which is sited outside will be lined with a rubber lining and re-housed within one of the buildings. This is possible because it works by the stones rubbing together to rub off the sharp edges rather than the inside of the tumbler drum;

• Floodlights to be redirected away from neighbours; and,

• No more than 2 HGV’s to be in the process of arriving at, within, or leaving from the site at any time.

7.2 It appears to your officers, from personal site visits and from the representations received that the main issues in this case are the noise generated by the movement and working of the stone in the yard and the visual, auditory and physical nuisance and disturbance generated by HGV’s accessing, parking, loading and unloading on the access roads.

7.3 The application was accompanied by a traffic and highways report, which found that during a 12 hour survey, 28 vehicles arrived at and 34 vehicles left the application site. This was less than the trip generation of unit 2 and represented only 25/30% of the total trip generation of the estate. Similarly with the maximum accumulating parking, the application site attracted a maximum of 18 vehicles, the same as unit 2 and only 31% of the estate total. During the survey, no more than 2 HGV’s were in the process of either arriving or departing the site, at any one time.

7.4 Notwithstanding the information contained in the representations, there is no evidence to suggest that these figures are in any way misleading in respect of the operation of the site since the application was submitted. Observations of the site by your officers would suggest that such a change in the manner in which the vehicle movements and the use of the access roads takes place, has occurred over this period but this is not unexpected given the fact that a live application is being considered. The highway authority has not raised any objections or concerns in respect of the use of the site in the manner proposed. The issue for the local planning authority is whether the current control over vehicular movements can be realistically maintained.

7.5 With regard to the noise issue, a noise assessment was submitted with the application. This was considered to be inadequate in terms of its depth and scale. Further noise surveys were then carried out by the applicant which identified that noise from the site does cause disturbance to nearby residents and identified four sources;

• Noise from vehicle movements in and out of the site • Noise from vehicle movements within the site • Noise from stone cutting and dressing equipment at the site Page 13 • Noise from unloading and handling large pieces of uncut stone

7.6 Council Environmental Health Officers have undertaken a series of independent and unannounced noise surveys at various points around the site since the application was submitted in order to assess the impact of the site on the occupiers of nearby residential properties and to evaluate the figures obtained by the applicant’s noise consultant.

7.7 The conclusion of those surveys did not vary significantly from the applicants final submission and further identified that;

• Noise from stone curing on the site is intrusive at Green Acres to the east of the site • Noise from stone handling and vehicle movements is intrusive at Green Acres • Noise from HGV movements and other vehicle movements during early mornings and late evening is likely to be intrusive Station House, Willow Copse and Green Acres. • It was also noted that intrusion on the roadway from parked HGV’s and stone slurry run off has been much reduces.

7.8 Given the observed and recorded levels of these recognised impacts your Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that they may be adequately controlled by the imposition and, if necessary enforcement of effective conditions on a planning approval and has suggested a number of conditions.

7.9 These findings are acknowledged by the applicant and the suggested conditions, which include limiting the hours of operation of the site to 0800-1800 Monday to Friday only, have also been accepted. In terms of its scale and noise impact therefore, it would appear that the continued use of the site in the manner proposed can be adequately mitigated and made acceptable in terms of its impact on surroundings and neighbouring amenities.

7.10 The unauthorised open fronted work shelter building does not itself raise any significant planning issues since it is well screened by screen planted bund which surrounds the whole site. However it is suggested that it should be given a closed front to contain the noise of the activities carried on within it.

7.11 This is an established rural employment site, providing employment opportunities for not just this District, but also the South Cumbria and Craven Districts. It is well located between these, on principal roads connecting Cumbria and Scotland with West Yorkshire. In visual terms the impact of the site on the surrounding rural area is limited by the significant mature landscaping and bunding which surrounds it. In terms of policy and planning guidance it is possible to identify policies which would argue both for and against the development. In this regard it is considered that the fact that this is not a new isolated development but a continuation of a use on a well established, small but intensive rural industrial site is critical in considering the principle of the proposal and would militate in favour of approval.

7.12 If the principle in locational terms is accepted, the Committee must determine the acceptability or otherwise in terms of the impact on nearby neighbours and whether this can be effectively managed through the imposition of planning controls. There are some noise issues emanating from on site activities but the main course of nuisance is created by activities, vehicle reversing, unloading etc taking place off the site on the access road. This – it is argued - is a result of the site being overdeveloped and leaving insufficient room for loading, unloading and turning. When considering this, your officers have had regard to case law relating to a 1995 decision in Norfolk where planning conditions imposed on a permission which sought to regularise a depot for storing and processing wood products, were later found to be unreasonable.

7.13 To effectively control a retrospective use, planning conditions have to pass the imposition tests in Circular 11/95 and be reasonably capable of being complied with. In this instance whilst the mitigation proposed in the noise-related conditions are capable of being reasonably complied with, there remains doubt about planning conditions which attempt to regulate HGV movements and parking in the vicinity.

7.14 Whilst movements have been regulated to a degree during the application period, recent evidence from neighbours has demonstrated breaches even prior to the committee meeting on 19 th April 2010. Page 14 This introduces reasonable doubt that a temporary planning permission could be ineffective. 8.0 Conclusions

8.1 This application has come about through the consequences of the sudden and rapid expansion In the activities of an otherwise well-established (though unauthorised) rural business, on an equally well established light industrial estate in the rural area, The development currently supports 23 full time employees from the surrounding rural area of Lancaster, South Cumbria and Craven District.

8.2 There are no objections to the development from statutory consultees. Most importantly the Environmental Health Service, after undertaking independent noise assessments, has concluded that with the imposition of suitable conditions both to control activities within the site and prevent unauthorised activities taking place on the access road and other areas they would not raise objections to the development.

8.3 It would appear that the activities surrounding the use and operation of the site can be modified in such ways that remove some causes of disturbance and detrimental impact upon the neighbouring residential neighbours, and it would also appear that the site operator (the applicant) is willing to implement these changes and to abide by a raft of conditions designed to regulate there activities, within and around the site. There is considerable doubt however that the applicant can control the level of HGV movements to and from the site and maintain space within the site boundary to accommodate vehicular movements without parking or storage overspilling onto adjoining roads. Given the difficulties highlighted by the case law and advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 18 – ‘Enforcing Planning Control’ it seems that the only practicable way forward is to refuse the current application and give the applicants a period of 12 months (this maintains the ability to enforce within the immunity period) to demonstrate that they could operate within the scope of theoretical conditions. Then after that period regular and effective compliance is certain, then permission could be considered. If evidence shows that the use cannot operate without causing harm then enforcement action to require the cessation of the use would be inevitable.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reasons (and subject to the enforcement measures being ratified below):

1. The Local Planning Authority considers that the use is incapable of being regulated by planning conditions which could ensure that HGV movements are controlled in such a manner that loading and unloading can be contained within the site, and HGV parking on adjoining roads can be avoided. Without such controls the parking and manovering of HGVs within the local road access network causes an unacceptable level of harm to living conditions of local residents, and the appearance of the rural area in the vicinity.

Enforcement Matters

That Members resolve to pursue enforcement action to secure the cessation of the use, only if it can be demonstrated within 12 months of this decision that the operation of the premises causes unacceptable harm to the living conditions of local residents and the appearance of the rural area. In the event that the use is proven to be able to operate without harm after 12 months, further regularising steps be invited.

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 15 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 7

A7 7.6.2010 10/00192/RCN

Application Site Proposal

Hale Carr Caravan Park Removal of conditions on applications 2/2/3536, 84/1172 and 97/1194 which limit the occupancy to Hale Carr Lane gypsies or travellers only and which will allow for unrestricted occupancy and siting of static caravans Heysham

Morecambe

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr N. Staples Building Plan Services

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

11 May 2010

Case Officer Mr Andrew Holden

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is located at the southern end of Hale Carr Lane, Heysham immediately to the south of Crofters Fold residential housing. The site bounded by Hale Carr Lane to the west, Morecambe to Heysham rail line to the east with residential housing to the north and south. The site currently has approximately 23 residential caravans located within the plot with consent for a total of 40 pitches.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is seeking to remove historical planning conditions attached to the site which limit occupancy to gypsies and travellers only to allow unrestricted permanent residential occupation.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has a limited site history all relating to its development and use caravan site for the housing of gypsies and travellers.

3.2 At its meeting on 30 June 2007, Committee considered a report on two sites - this site and one at Oxcliffe New Farm also in Heysham which is in different ownership - where the issue of sales of gypsy plots had arisen. The report identified a series of approaches to the problem, as follows:

1. Take no action: this would leave the current issues unresolved;

2. Invite applications to regularise the position: this would be contrary to current housing and planning policies, and result in a shortfall in the required provision of gypsy sites within the district;

3. Take enforcement action to remove unauthorised occupants from the site; this would probably place the council under an obligation to re-house the occupants; Page 16

4. Under enforce, to enable current occupants to remain on the site, but enforce the terms of the occupancy condition for future occupants: this would provide some security for the present occupants, but at the same time make it clear that continued breaches of the occupancy conditions would be unacceptable.

3.4 Members resolved to pursue option 4. This means that no action is being taken against people already living on the sites affected, but that the Council will require any future sales or leases of the plots to be to bona-fide gypsies and travellers. The intention was that over time the two sites will revert to being available for use by gypsies and travellers.

3.5 This site now has 7 units occupied in breach of the occupancy condition. The current application has been submitted by a caravan owner/occupier rather than the site owner. This application has been submitted following a recent determination by the Planning Committee to approve a similar proposal to remove occupancy conditions at Oxcliffe New Farm in January 2009 under application numbers 08/01287/RCN and 08/01303/RCN.

Application Number Proposal Decision 2/2/3536 Change of use for 6 caravan pitches for Gypsies and travellers 1/84/1172 Change of use of derelict land to private gypsy site with 14 Approved on appeal in pitches and ablution blocks 1985 97/01194/CU Change off use of land to provide 20 additional pitches for Approved 1997 gypsies and travellers

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Strategic Housing Concerns over the potential loss of designated residential Gypsy/traveller pi tches. Officer Policy L6 of the draft North West Plan Partial Review sets out requirements for Gypsy and traveller accommodation across the Region for 2007 to 2016. Lancaster District must provide an additional minimum of 40 permanent pitches and 5 transit pitches by 2016. This should also account for any net loss in provision since 2007.

The council is unlikely to achieve the minimum targets during the first five year planning period (up to 2012) because of existing net loss in private pitches as a result of previous planning consents for removal of conditions. The Council should consider refusal of the application to remove occupancy conditions to ensure projected targets are met. Environmental Unable to raise a formal objection as EHO has to grant a site licence subject to Health planning consent. However, concern is raised over the loss of provision and the need for the council to provide additional pitches by 2016 in line with Government forecasts. Presently the district is under provided for such pitches.

Parish Council No comments to date – any comments will be reported directly to committee.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Any other representations received will be reported orally at Committee.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 The development needs to be considered in respect to : -

6.2 Regional Spatial Strategy – North West Plan Partial Review July 2009 states that: - A key Government objective is providing decent homes for all, including the Gypsy and Traveller Page 17 communities. This means ensuring that sufficient and suitable provision is made to meet the needs of these communities.

6.3 The draft submitted North West Plan Partial Review was published in September 2008 and contains new policies including one for Gypsy and Travellers accommodation provision (Policy L6). The intention is for these policies to be included in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). In summary this sets out an overall requirement for at least 825 net additional residential pitches the region over the period 2007 to 2016:

6.4 Table 7.2 Scale and Distribution of Gypsy and Traveller Pitch Provision of the Review indicates that in order to achieve this net increase in pitches over the region, Lancaster District must provide an additional 40 permanent and 5 transit pitches for Gypsies and Travellers raising authorised provision of permanent residential pitches from 142 to 182. Crucially, these are minimum targets, should be met by 2016, and should account for any net loss in provision.

6.5 The Lancaster District Core Strategy provides indicative criteria for the location of Gypsy and Travellers. In addition it clarifies that such needs have been investigated by the Lancashire Sub regional Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation and Related Service assessment (2007). The assessment showed that existing provision in 2007 was broadly meeting local needs. It also identified a need for around 16 additional pitches by 2011 and a further 7-8 by 2016.

6.6 Policy SC4 seeks to ensure that housing needs are met through housing Allocation and the planning process in a way which builds sustainable communities. Gypsy and Travellers provision is considered to be part of the housing provision.

6.7 "Saved" policies in the Lancaster District Local Plan are particularly relevant to the proposal: Policy H15, which states that the Council will refuse consent for proposals which would result in the loss of existing gypsy sites unless it can be shown that they are no longer needed, or that alternative provision can be made of a comparable standard elsewhere.

6.8 Policy H16 provides guidance on the establishment of or extension of gypsy sites. The policy seeks to ensure that additional pitches are only provided to meet genuine need and provides guidance on the location of such sites. The preferred location being in or adjacent to existing settlements and within reasonable distance of local services and schools. The site should also provide acceptable living environment and not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The purpose of an occupation restriction of this kind is not to segregate gypsies from the community as a whole. It is to ensure an adequate stock of gypsy sites within the District. Gypsies (and Irish travellers, who form a separate community) frequently have difficulty obtaining land suitable for their requirements and local planning authorities are required to make appropriate provision for their needs.

7.2 Saved Policy H15 of the Lancaster District Local Plan reflects the concerns over the loss of established pitches and seeks to refuse and proposal which would result in the loss of existing approved gypsy site provision. Exceptionally loss of provision in that location could be supported if the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated the site is no longer needed to meet existing or future needs for gypsy provision in the District or alternative provision has been made of a comparable standard on an appropriate site.

7.3 This requirement for provision is more pertinent now given the additional pitch requirement (40 pitches) contained within the RSS partial review and the net loss of provision already suffered with the loss of 23 pitches at Oxcliffe New Farm.

7.4 The site has 23 residential pitches currently due to layout, size and orientation of the units however, as indicated earlier in the report the site has consent for 40 units which form a large part of the current gypsy/traveller provision for the District. The loss of such a large number of pitches would further add to the net loss of pitches in relation to the 2007 position and lead to a demand to find 80 additional pitches within the District before 2016.

7.5 The current pitches are ideally located as they lie within the urban area and are located close to Page 18 primary and secondary schools as well as local shopping and medical services. Replacement of these pitches with such ease of access to services would be very difficult to achieve and could lead to the development of sites in less suitable locations, often on the edge of the urban area where they are less accessible and have greater landscape impact

7.6 The applicant has not provided any information/evidence to demonstrate that there is no longer a need for the pitches, indeed the site is still currently occupied by gypsy/travellers in all but 7 of the units. In addition no submission has been put forward for alternative provision. As a consequence it is considered that the current proposal will be contrary to policies H15 of the Lancaster District Local Plan and Policy SC4 of the Lancaster Core Strategy. Furthermore, the development would undermine draft Policy L6 of North West Plan Partial Review 2009 which is seeking the provision of a minimum of 40 additional pitches above 2007 levels.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 It must be recognised that the applicants are victims rather than deliberate perpetrators of the present breach of planning control. It was for this reason that Members resolved in June 2007 to pursue a policy of under-enforcement to enable the units to return to gypsy/traveller use over time. Members will also be aware of the decision in January 2009 to approve the removal of occupancy over the whole site at Oxcliffe New Farm under application numbers 08/01287/RCN and 08/01303/RCN. However, given the RSS partial review, and the reinforcing comments made by our Strategic Housing Officers, any further loss of provision will lead to an undermining of pitch provision in the District and a demand for the development of further gypsy/traveller pitches within the District to compensate for the loss as well as the additional need indentified at Regional level. Given the very strong policy position, and the lack of identifiable compensatory provision in the planning application, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy and should be resisted.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Contrary to Saved Policy H15 of the Lancaster District Local Plan and SC4 of the Lancaster Core Strategy - no evidence that the site is no longer needed for gypsies or that alternative accommodation is available for them elsewhere.

2. Contrary to the aims of draft policy L6 North West Plan Partial Review 2009 to ensure the provision of 40 additional residential pitches above the 2007 position.

3. Precedent for conversion of other gypsy caravan sites to general use.

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consider ation of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 19 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 8

A8 Monday 7 th June 2010 10/00271/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Toll Bar Garage Extension of time limit on application 07/01666/FUL for demolition of existing garage, redevelopment and 168 Scotforth Road construction of residential apartments (29 x 2 bed and 5 x 1 bed), associated car parking, landscaping and Lancaster engineering operations

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr Trevor Ingram Firth Associates Ltd

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

22 June 2010 N/A

Case Officer Mr Karl Glover

Departure N/A

Summary of Recommendation Approval subject to Section 106 Agreement

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application relates to a 2000sq.m site located to the south of Lancaster City Centre within the Scotforth Ward. The site occupies land positioned on the west side of the A6, in between the two Toll Bar Crescent junctions. The site currently accommodates a redundant petrol filling station, used car sales centre, car wash, mini market, internet café and DVD rental facility. The existing buildings on site are in a poor state of repair.

1.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, with the immediate locality typified by semi-detached and detached dwellings which vary in form and materials.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The applicant seeks a further three year time limit extension to a previously approved application (Ref: 07/01666/FUL) for the demolition of existing garage, redevelopment and construction of residential apartments (29 2-bedroomed and 5 1-bedroomed) with associated car parking, landscaping and engineering operations.

2.2 The layout of the development has a ‘U’ shaped footprint, which follows the established building lines of Toll Bar Crescent and Scotforth Road. The building height ranges from 2 to 3 storeys, with a 4th floor of accommodation provided within the roof space of the development.

2.3 The main pedestrian entrance to the development will be from Scotforth Road, although access to the site via the lower ground car park area is possible by vehicle and cycle from the Toll Bar Crescent south elevation. The lower ground floor car park will accommodate 51 vehicles, as well as, cycle and motorbike storage, from this area there will be both a stair and lift access to the apartments. There is also an emergency access provided from the landscaped courtyard, to Toll Bar Crescent north elevation.

Page 20 2.4 The proposed materials for the development include natural stone, slate and timber. The aim is to use high quality traditional materials with modern construction to achieve an energy efficient development. The exact material types would be agreed via condition should the application be approved.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The application site has a lengthy planning history associated with the development and expansion of the petrol filling station, the only application which is directly relevant to this application is the previous approval stated above (07/01666/FUL) which was permitted by members subject to conditions on the 11 th February 2008.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Lancashire County Satisfied that the proposed development conforms to regional planning policy. Planning Lancashire County Request that all conditions and advice notes relating to highway matters that Highways were attached to the original approval are repeated on the decision notice for this extension of time application.

Lancashire County No objections to the proposal. Archaeologist United Utilities No objections to proposal however a series of conditions are requested relating to surface water run off and further drainage related restrictions.

Environmental Health No objections to proposal, all previous conditions shall be repeated.

City Contract Services No observations received within the consultation period.

Lancashire Constabulary No observations received within the consultation period.

Fire Safety Officer No objections to the proposal.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 An objection has been received from a resident of Lawnswood Avenue who has objected to the principle of flats on the site.

5.2 No other representations had been received at the time this report was prepared.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

Since the approval of planning application 07/01666/FUL the Lancaster District Core Strategy has now been adopted and as such some of the Local Plan Policies have been either superseded or partially superseded. The relevant polices in the determination of this application are as follows:

6.1 Lancaster District Core Strategy

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) seeks to direct development to previously developed sites where it is convenient to walk, cycle and travel by public transport.

Policy SC2 (Urban Concentration) seeks to build healthy sustainable communities by focussing development where it will support the vitality of existing settlements, regenerate areas of need and minimise the need to travel. This policy seeks to accommodate 90% of new dwellings within the existing urban areas of Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth.

Page 21 Policy SC4 (Meeting the Districts Housing Requirement) sets out the principles which will ensure housing needs are met through housing allocations and determining planning applications This policy seeks to identity housing land and manage the phased release of housing land in accordance the Regional Spatial Strategy.

Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) seeks to maintain and improve the quality of development throughout the District by ensuring new development is of a quality which reflects and enhances the positive characteristics of its surroundings.

Policy ER7 (Renewable Energy) seeks to promote micro-renewable through the development control process and determining planning applications.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) seeks to safeguard and enhance the Districts Environmental Capital by ensuring that development in the city of Lancaster and other historic areas conserves and enhances a sense of place. This policy also indicates that the Council will resist proposals which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and public amenity.

6.2 Saved Policies of the District Local Plan

Policy H12 (Housing Design Layout and Materials) requires housing developments to be of a high standard of layout and design and use materials appropriate to and which retain the distinctive local identity of their surroundings.

Policy H19 (Development on small sites in Lancaster) states that new development within existing housing areas will be permitted which would not have a significant adverse effect on the amenities of nearly residents, provide a high standard of amenity and provides satisfactory access, servicing and cycle and car parking.

SPG12 (Residential Design Code) Gives guidance on layouts, spacing, privacy, parking, design and local distinctiveness, amongst other similar issues.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

The applicant has stated that the extension of time to the current planning permission was due to the prevailing economic situation, particularly with regard to obtaining funding for residential development. The extension of time is therefore to give the market a bit more time to recover from the economic downturn.

7.1 Amenity

7.2 The development will deliver a significant improvement to both the visual and residential amenity of the area in that it will remove both the existing untidy buildings from site and the intensive commercial use that has given rise to significant noise and general disturbance problems for the surrounding local residents.

The developer has undertaken a significant amount of public consultation with regard to both the scale and design of the development, settling on a staggered design approach, the scale of which is considered to response appropriately to the neighbouring residential properties in that the building form steps down to 2 storey in height adjoining the neighbouring bungalow properties on Scotforth Road and Toll Bar Crescent north and down to between 2 and 2 an 2 1/2 stories adjoining the two storey properties on Toll Bar Crescent south. The 3 storey section of the scheme is concentrated to the centre of the development and provides the building with a scale and presence that it also sympathetic to its position and standing on the main road frontage.

7.3 The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties. There is sufficient separation distance to safeguard against direct overlooking and loss of privacy, at in excess of 21 metres, from the three storey section of the proposal to the properties at the rear of the site. There is also a separation distance of 17 metres between the side elevations of the development and the front and side elevations of the properties opposite on Toll Bar Crescent.

Page 22 7.4 Design

7.5 The development is of modern design but utilises traditional materials, including natural stone and slate, to ensure that the proposal is in keeping with the historic character of south Lancaster, where possible materials will be locally sourced. Robust construction details will also provide improved levels of energy efficiency to the building.

7.6 The layout of the proposal has a `U’ shaped footprint following the established building lines of Toll Bar Crescent and Scotforth Road. The development is designed around a landscaped courtyard which provides a secure communal amenity area for the residents to enjoy. Landscaped margins to the development will also be provided the precise details of which would be agreed via condition should the application be approved.

7.7 Refuse storage facilities will be provided within the communal bin storage area within the lower ground car park. There will also be provision of recycling facilities in this area, the exact details of which would be agreed via condition should the application be approved.

8.0 Affordable Housing

8.1 The number of residential units proposed fall above the threshold of development that requires the provision of Affordable Housing.

8.2 The developer has expressed a willingness to provide an element of Affordable Housing within the scheme, however due to the cost associated with developing the site the developer proposes a 20% provision, which works out at 7 affordable units, consisting of 5, one-bedroom and 2, two-bedroom units, which would be provided in association with a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). Prior to submission of the application the developer made initial contact with a number of local RSLs. The development will deliver a significant improvement to both the visual and residential amenity of the area in that it will remove both the existing untidy buildings from site and the intensive commercial use that has given rise to significant noise and general disturbance problems for the surrounding local residents.

9.0 Highways

At 51 spaces the development provides sufficient off-street parking and cycle storage area within a private lower ground car park. The site is also well served by local transport, sited on a primary bus corridor.

9.1 The existing use of the site is car orientated and dependent upon a significant amount of traffic movement for its successful operation. At present the garage also has both fuel and food deliveries which involve the use of heavy goods vehicles. Development of the site for residential accommodation will result in an overall improvement in traffic condition on the local road network, and is likely to reduce the amount of car and HGV movements within the vicinity. The proposed development also amend the vehicular access to the site, locating the car park access to the Toll Bar Crescent south elevation, thus resulting in closure of a number of existing access points onto the A6 which will reduce potential points of conflict with the highway network.

9.2 The number of residential units proposed is within the threshold of development that attracts a contribution to highways improvements.

10 Planning Obligations

10.1 The previous Section 106 Agreement was for a financial contribution to sustainable modes of transport including improvements for cycling facilities in Lancaster for a sum of £22.050. It has been agreed with Lancaster City Council Legal Services and the applicant that a new revised Section 106 Agreement shall be provided as part of this renewal application.

11 Conclusions

11.1 The current permission was considered appropriate in terms of its scale, massing and design and the Local Planning Authority, for the reasons outlined with this report, accepted that there is a sufficient overriding justification in this instance to permit redevelopment of the site for residential Page 23 flats.

11.2 Subject to a renewed Section 106 and the additional renewable energy conditions now required, the development is considered to be acceptable with all previous conditions from application 07/01666/FUL being implemented as such Members are therefore advised that this application can be supported.

Recommendation

That subject to the signing of the Section 106 Agreement in respect of the transport contribution referred to in Paragraph 10.1, Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year consent. 2. Development in accordance the amended plans received 21st January 2008. 3. Standard contaminated land conditions. 4. Samples of all external materials to be submitted to the LPA and agreed prior to the commencement of development. 5. Details of the boundary treatment including design and external finishes shall be submitted to and agreed prior to the commencement of development 6. Details of the stone work, coursing, pointing, head, cills and jambs to be submitted and agreed prior to the commencement of the development. 7. Details of windows, doors, eaves, verge and ridges including set back and finishes and details of the dormers, roof lights, rainwater goods, balastrading including finishes to be submitted and agreed prior to the commencement of the development. 8. Landscaping and surface treatments to be agreed prior to the commencement of the development. 9. Limited hours of construction 0800-1800hrs Monday to Friday, 0800-1400hrs Saturday and not on Sundays or Public Holidays. 10. Details of refuse storage facilities to be submitted and agreed prior to the commencement of the development 11. Provision and retention car parking, motorcycle and cycle storage 12. Closure of existing site accesses 13. Provision of adequate visibility splays. 14. Sustainable homes code level 3 condition 15. 10% Renewable Energy condition

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Huma n Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 24 AgendaAgenda Item Item 9 Committee Date Application Number

A9 7.6.2010 10/00316/RCN

Application Site Proposal

Letter Box Field Removal of condition 4 on application 08/00937/FUL relating to details of the new stone wall and access Ford Lane

Silverdale

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr & Mrs T and M Mackintosh Glynn Burgin

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

25 May 2010

Case Officer Mr Andrew Holden

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The site lies within the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and forms part of a larger land holding by the applicant. The site is located within a small triangular area of woodland previously owned by British Rail. The woodland is bounded to the south by Letterbox Field, to the east by the Carnforth-Barrow railway line and by Ford Lane to the west. The topography and road network lends open views of the site on approach from the south but screens the site on approach from the north. The access to Waterslack Garden Centre lies immediately opposite the site.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is seeking to remove condition 4 of planning consent 08/00937/FUL which read: -

Precise details of the new stone wall and access shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority before any works are commenced on site. The agreed scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details within three months of the date of the decision.

2.2 The details have not been agreed but some works have been undertaken in line with the schematic details which formed part of the initial submission plans. The applicant has now reconstructed the dry limestone boundary wall immediately in front of the barn and introduced tree planting in the field which is well established. In practice, this application is only seeking to remove the need to agree details of an enclosing wall and construction of a second low limestone wall which would sweep in an arc from the existing field access onto Ford Lane to the gated field to enclose the new tree planting.

Page 25 3.0 Site History

3.1 Background to the current application

3.2 The applicant lives at The Barn, Moss Lane, Silverdale and utilises Exmoor ponies for conservation grazing within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB together with other locations outside the District. The land adjacent to the applicant's residence has been subject to a number of applications relating to its use in connection with EPIC (Exmoor Ponies in Conservation). Currently the field has consent for a number of small stable buildings and the area of woodland to the north of the field gained consent for a pole barn to be used for hay storage in connection with the EPIC enterprise. This application was determined in Nov 2005 under planning consent 05/00949/FUL.

3.3 The permission granted consent for an open pole barn measuring approx 9m x 18m which was to be sited parallel to Ford Lane but set back approx 7m from the highway boundary and 2/4m from the field boundary. This set back allowed the development to be screened from wider views by the presence of existing trees along both frontages. Some felling works needed to be undertaken as the woodland, previously in the ownership of British Rail, had undertaken no maintenance over many years. In addition to the trees which were to remain after felling, new tree planting was agreed, primarily to the Ford Lane and railway frontage.

3.4 A period of time elapsed be fore work commenced with work initially being undertaken in early 2007. Agreement was made as a minor revision to the scheme to introduce a short length of timber panelling down from the eaves. However, in August 2007 complaints were received from a number of persons over the presence of the building the subject of this application.

3.5 Following investigation it was determined that building had been constructed in a position which differs substantially from the approved location and to a different design with full height timber boarding to three elevations. It was concluded that the building was materially different from the approved scheme that it would require planning consent in its own right.

3.6 A significant period of time elapsed due to the applicant's family health problems and the authorities desire to allow time for these issues to be overcome. A formal retrospective application was received in late July 2008 under 08/00937/FUL. The application was duly considered by Planning Committee and approved on 6 October 2008 with a number of planning conditions attached. The conditions related to:-

1. Staining all the timberwork dark brown; 2. Implementation of the approved landscaping during the first planting season following approval of the application (Nov 2008 and March 2009); 3. Restriction of building use to the storage of hay/straw and agricultural machinery only; 4. Details of the new stone wall and access to be agreed and constructed within three months of the date of the decision.

3.7 The tree planting within the field to the southern elevation of the barn was undertaken in 2009 but no other works had been addressed. Following the service of a Breach of Condition Notice in January 2010 the dark staining of the timber has now been agreed and undertaken to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. The applicant has sought to further delay the tree planting between the rear (west) of the barn and Ford Lane until an assessment of the retaining boundary wall has been undertaken by the Highway Authority, as the structural integrity of the highway wall is of concern to the applicant and works for tree planting would be abortive if major reconstruction work needed to be undertaken. The local planning authority is still awaiting the outcome of these investigations.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Page 26 Statutory Consultee Response AONB Unit No comments received within statutory time period.

Parish council Objects on the grounds that the site has already been the subject of enforcement.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 None to date – any comments will be reported verbally to committee.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Lancaster District Core Strategy

Policy SC1 - Sustainable Communities, to ensure that new development proposals are as sustainable as possible, minimise greenhouse gas emissions and are adaptable to the likely effects of Climate Change ensuring that development is sustainably located, design, constructed and is integrated with the character of the landscape.

E1 - Environmental Capital seeks to safeguard and enhance the District’s Environmental Capital by applying national and regional planning policies to protect and enhance nature landscapes of national importance.

6.2 Lancaster District Local Plan

Saved Policy E3 – Seeks to resist development which will directly or indirectly have a significant adverse effect upon their character or harm the landscape quality, nature conservation interests or features of geological importance to adjacent Arnside/Silverdale areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Saved Policy E4 – Seeks to ensure that development within the Countryside area is in scale and keeping with the character and natural beauty of the landscape, appropriate to its surroundings and makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The applicant has indicated that they have found themselves in a position where they find themselves with an insurmountable burden of having no means of financing such a major project. The funding of EPIC (Exmoor Ponies in Conservation) is a charitable operation for which funds have dried up due to the recession and other factors. Currently the applicant is funding the activities from their own personal resources, which have been seriously depleted as a result. The applicant also argues that at the time the details were agreed in principle under 08/00937/FUL there was serious family illness in the family and as a consequence neither of the applicants were in a position to have a meaningful input into the revised submission. If it had been possible the issue of the provision of a second wall would have been discuss ed in detail with the agent and the local planning authority. Those circumstances aside, the current applicant must be considered on its own merits and in particular whether there is a definite need for the development of a second wall in the form approved.

7.2 As currently constructed the original field has now been reinstated along with an access to the barn and woodland. The barn has also been stained dark brown to reduce its impact. Tree planting has also been introduced on the south elevation within the field to aid screening of the barn in the longer term. The tree planting whilst established is only relatively low and is currently only protected by low narrow diameter plastic tree guards. It can also be seen that given the topography of Letter Box Field that the lower section of the barn and the boundary walls are hidden form view when approaching from the south along Redbridge Lane and Ford Lane. As a result the additional stone wall would only be visible close to the site.

7.3 The original concept for the enclosed woodland was put forward by the agent to reflect a detail common in the Arnside and Silverdale AONB where most of the areas of woodland are enclosed by stone walls. The woodland has developed in part due to the lack of grazing and cropping by stock Page 27 afforded by the wall. However, this detail, whilst widespread is not exclusive and field trees are not uncommon in the area.

7.4 Given the topography of the neighbouring land and the presence of stone boundary walls to the field and roadside boundaries it is considered that the loss of an additional stone boundary wall would not unduly impact upon the special landscape character of the AONB. Nevertheless, there is an acknowledged need for the provision and maintenance of tree planting in this location to allow the tree planting to develop and mature aiding the screening of the barn which lies so close to the road. Some form of protection is required to ensure that the trees are not nibbled/grazed or rubbed by the stock grazing in the field, currently the applicants’ Exmoor ponies.

7.5 It is considered that the wall could be omitted in this location but tree protection will need to be introduced. This could take the form of tree guards, a new post and rail or post and wire fencing along a similar line to that previously agreed.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 N/A.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The application to remove condition 4 of 08/00937/FUL be supported subject to a condition for the applicant to agree, provide and maintain an alternative method of tree protection. The agreement and provision should be within the next three months and the maintenance should be for a minimum of ten years to enable the trees to develop to a height where they will not be unduly affected by stock in the field.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Precise details of an alternative method of tree protection to be agreed, implemented within 3 months of the date of consent and thereafter maintained for a period of 10 years.

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 28 AgendaAgenda Item Item 10 Committee Date Application Number

A10 7th June 2010 10/00131/FUL

Application Site Proposal

1 The Headlands Erection of a two storey extension to the rear including the creation of a balcony Heysham

Morecambe

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr Mike Wolff Robert Crabtree Ltd

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

28 April 2010 Committee Cycle

Case Officer Mr Daniel Ratcliffe

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval with conditions.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This application is one which would normally be dealt with under delegated powers. It has been referred to Committee by Councillor Greenall following neighbour concerns regarding the proposal.

1.2 The application site is occupied by a large modern detached property located at the entrance to a private residential cul de sac adjacent to the coast in Heysham. The surrounding properties are of similar size and design but all vary in detail. The property in question has a grey wet dash and stone exterior, slate roof and white upvc windows. There is an existing conservatory to the rear of the property and a raised first floor sun lounge to the north east corner of the property.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application proposes the erection of a two storey extension to the rear and repositioning of the existing conservatory. The extension will be constructed in the position of the existing conservatory and first floor sunroom/lounge. The two storey element will project 3.5 metres from the existing rear elevation. This will bring this part of the property in line with the rear elevation of the remainder of the property and will also sit in line with the rear elevation of the neighbouring property of no.2. A raised balcony area is proposed be constructed between the proposed extension and the existing gable projection. This balcony is to be positioned in the centre of the rear elevation.

2.2 The existing conservatory, which is 3.5 metres in length and 4 metres wide, is proposed to be repositioned at the rear of the new extension. Other than this the overall extension is proposed by the applicant to balance the appearance of the rear elevation and will form an almost symmetrical design when viewed from the rear.

2.3 A relatively minor amendment has been made to the proposal. Initially a large first floor window measuring 4300mm by 1500mm was proposed in the rear elevation. It was requested that in order to alleviate potential issues of overlooking and to also benefit the design, this window should match Page 29 those of the existing property. The agent has agreed to amend the plans accordingly and as such amended plans are awaited.

3.0 Site History

Application Number Proposal Decision 00/00914/FUL Alterations to form additional room and balcony Approved

01/00227/FUL Erection of conservatory at first floor level in lieu of balcony Approved

02/00629/FUL Erection of a rear conservatory Approved

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Parish Council None received within statutory time period.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 One objection has been received. The objection highlighted three main concerns. The first is that there is a restrictive covenant on these properties involving the erection of any extension beyond the original rear building line. The second and third concerns are that the extension would result in a loss of privacy to the objector’s neighbouring property and that should permission be granted obscure glazing and matching materials should be a condition.

5.2 A second objection by the same person, as Secretary to the Headlands Management Committee, once again raises the issue of a restrictive covenant relating to extensions to the rear.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Lancaster District Local Plan (LDLP): Saved Policy H19 of the Lancaster District Local Plan relates to housing development within urban areas such as Lancaster and Morecambe. It states that development in these areas should provide a high standard of amenity and should not have an adverse effect on the amenities of nearby residents.

6.2 Supplementary Planning guidance Note 12 ( SPG12 ): The Residential Design Code offers general guidance and design principles.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy (LDCS): Policy SC5 - Achieving Quality in Design seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the Core Strategy vision and that new development will be of a quality that enhances the character of the area, results in an improved appearance where conditions are unsatisfactory and compliments and enhances public realm.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The main consideration is the potential impact of the proposal on the residential amenity of the neighbouring property at Number 2. The proposed extension will project as far into the rear garden, and therefore will sit in-line with the existing rear elevation of the neighbouring property. The proposed balcony will be positioned to the centre of the rear elevation and it is considered that this will present less of an impact on neighbouring amenity than is currently experienced by the first floor sun lounge, approved in 2001, which sits closer to the shared boundary.

7.2 The existing conservatory is to be reused and repositioned to the rear of the proposed extension. This element of the proposal is likely to have the most impact on the occupants of the neighbouring Page 30 property. The boundary fence between the two sites is approximately 1 metre in height and as a result there is no way of screening views between the two. It is however considered that impact can be minimised by way of a condition that obscure glazing be fitted to windows within the north elevation of the conservatory.

7.3 The issue regarding the ‘rear building line’ is a matter that the objector refers to, and he advises that it is included on the covenant affecting the properties at The Headlands. If this is the case, its inclusion is presumably to effectively protect seaward views. However this is purely a legal matter and does not affect the planning application, which instead must be determined in accordance with planning policies.

7.4 Overall the extension will serve to balance the appearance of the rear elevation without significant impact on neighbouring amenity. The extension is proposed to be constructed in materials to match those of the existing property.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The application is considered to be acceptable in design terms and, subject to conditions requiring obscure glazing to protect the amenity of the neighbouring occupants, it would be an acceptable form of development. The application is recommended for approval.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year permission. 2. Development carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 3. In accordance with amended plans received. 4. Materials to match those of the existing property. 5. Conservatory windows to north elevation fitted with obscure glazing.

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 31 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 11

A11 7th June 2010 10/00087/FUL

Application Site Proposal

5 The Headlands Erection of single storey extensions to form new conservatory, garage and sitting room Heysham

Morecambe

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Shaun Whatmuff Mr Graham Bywater

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

10 May 2010 Committee Cycle

Case Officer Mr Daniel Ratcliffe

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval with conditions

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This application is one which would normally be dealt with under delegated powers. It has been referred to Committee by Councillor Greenall following neighbour concerns regarding the proposal.

1.2 The application site is occupied by a large modern detached property located along the west and coastal side of a private residential cul de sac in Heysham. The surrounding properties are of similar size and design but all vary in detail. The property in question has a grey wet dash and stone exterior, slate roof and white upvc windows. There is a single-storey wrap around extension to the rear and north side of the property.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application proposes three different extensions. The first part of the proposal involves the conversion of the existing integral double garage to a family sitting room as well as some internal alterations to the room configuration, most significantly the enlargement of the kitchen and repositioning of the utility room. The appearance of the double garage door to the front elevation will be replaced with an extension in the form of a large bay window, overhanging canopy roof with gable detail to the centre. The window and external wall finishes are proposed to match those of the existing front elevation.

2.2 The second part of the proposal involves the erection of a single garage to the north side elevation. The garage will sit in front of the existing dining room extension and the pitch roof will intersect with its existing roof slope. Internally the garage is approximately 3.3 metres wide and 5.2 metres in length and provides the required parking space behind the building line which would have been lost by the conversion of the existing garage.

2.3 The third and final part of the proposal involves the erection of a conservatory to the rear of the property. The conservatory will be approximately 4.5 metres square in floor space and will sit Page 32 adjacent to the existing dining room extension. In contrast to the dining room extension, which has a shallow mono pitched roof running from the original rear elevation of the property (front to back), the roof of the conservatory will run north to south (side to side). The building will be entirely glazed with sliding patio style doors to the rear elevation.

3.0 Site History

3.1 There is one planning application from 2002 (Ref: 02/00546/FUL) which proposed the conversion of the roof space to residential accommodation with two roof lights to the rear roof slope. This application was approved.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Parish Council No comments received within the statutory consultation period

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Six letters have been received from neighbouring residents. Three of these letters have expressed no objection to the proposal provided the extensions are constructed in exact materials to match those of the existing property.

5.2 One letter of objection largely refers to a separate development at 1 The Headlands (Ref: 10/00131/FUL, which is also being considered at this Committee) but these concerns are echoed for this development at Number 5. The concerns involve the erection of an extension beyond the ‘rear building line’ as deemed by a covenant; loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and the need to ensure that the materials used match those of the existing property. The same neighbour, representing the Headlands Management Committee, has objected for similar reasons.

5.3 The occupants of the nearest neighbouring property have expressed no objection to the proposal provided the extension is amended to comply with the ‘rear building line covenant’ and side facing windows are fitted with obscure glazing.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Lancaster District Local Plan (LDLP): Saved Policy H19 of the Lancaster District Local Plan relates to housing development within urban areas including Heysham. It states that development in these areas should provide a high standard of amenity and should not have an adverse effect on the amenities of nearby residents.

6.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 12 ( SPG12 ): The Residential Design Code offers general guidance and design principles.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy (LDCS): Policy SC5 - Achieving Quality in Design seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the Core Strategy vision and that new development will be of a quality that enhances the character of the area, results in an improved appearance where conditions are unsatisfactory and compliments and enhances public realm.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The extension to the front of the property is considered to add interest and a particular design feature to the property frontage. The loss of the double garage, and specifically the parking space behind the building line, will be inconsequential as it will be reinstated in the form of the proposed single garage to the side. There are no particular concerns regarding these two elements of the proposal provided they are carried out in matching materials due to the obvious prominence of the front elevation and to allow for consistency within the street scene.

Page 33 7.2 The proposed conservatory to the rear of the property presents a modern glazed box design and although in relative contrast to the style of the existing property, its contemporary design is inoffensive and more importantly will be to the less prominent rear elevation. There is a concern relating to the south side windows of the conservatory and the potential impact regarding loss of privacy to rear of the neighbouring property. There is a 2 metre high boundary fence along the shared boundary but this reduces to a 1 metre high fence and at mid point along the existing hard standing which forms a seating area to the rear of the property. However, the conservatory will sit over 4 metres from the boundary in question and a case can be made that this is a sufficient distance at which overlooking is negligible. That said the windows in question are full height (2.5 metres) floor to eaves.

7.3 Under normal circumstances should the extension be reduced by half a metre it is likely that it not would require permission. However the proposal must be determined as it presently stands, and In this situation there is sufficient concern to suggest that the windows along the south facing elevation should be fitted with obscure glazing, to help minimise the impact of the development on the privacy of the neighbouring property.

7.4 Concerns have been raised that the materials referred to in the proposal do not match those of the existing property. A condition will be required ensuring that the materials, and particularly those of the roof, shall match those of the existing property.

7.5 The issue regarding the ‘rear building line’ is a matter that an objector refers to, and he advises that it is included on the covenant affecting the properties at The Headlands. If this is the case, its inclusion is presumably to effectively protect seaward views. However this is purely a legal matter and does not affect the planning application, which instead must be determined in accordance with planning policies.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The design of the front elevation is considered an improvement on the existing double garage which dominates the frontage of the property. The garage to the side reinstates the parking space behind the building line and serves a purpose to remove a parked car from the open aspect streetscene. The conservatory is a contemporary element which although has potential to overlook the neighbouring garden, can be resolved by an obscure glazing condition. All three elements of the proposal are now considered acceptable in this location and as such the application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions below.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit. 2. Development carried out in accordance with approved plans. 3. Materials to match those of the existing property. 4. Roof material to be agreed prior to commencement. 5. Conservatory windows to the south elevation fitted with obscure glazing and retained at all times thereafter.

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 34 AgendaAgenda Item Item 12 Committee Date Application Number

A12 7 June 2010 10/00306/OUT

Application Site Proposal

Nightingale Hall Extension of time limit on application 06/00661/OUT Quernmore Road for the redevelopment of the site for residential use Lancaster Lancashire Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Fats And Proteins Uk Ltd (Mr Edmund Metcalfe) Mr Hamish Robertshaw

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

25 June 2010 N/A

Case Officer Mr Andrew Drummond

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval subject to conditions

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site of 3.39 hectares is known as Nightingale Hall Farm. It is a former animal rendering plant occupying a position off Quernmore Road on the eastern outskirts of Lancaster. The site has remained unused following a fire in late 2005. A range of industrial buildings and areas of hardstanding are enclosed by security fencing and boundary walls. As such the land remains in a derelict and unsatisfactory condition.

There is a discernable difference in land levels between the Quernmore Road access point and the remainder of the site.

1.2 The site is bounded by Lancaster Cemetery, which is a Registered Historic Park and Garden, and nearby Williamson Park, which enjoys the same designation and conservation status. Protected green space and landscape surrounds the site, though there are a number of buildings within these areas, including Christ Church Primary School to the west, a detached dwelling to the south, and a row of terraced properties, known as Willow Grove to the east. Other uses within the vicinity include the Royal Grammar School's playing fields to the north and west, allotments to the west and detached offices to the south.

Access to the site is from Quernmore Road.

1.3 Nigh tingale Hall Farm is allocated as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Lancaster District Local Plan. Land immediately to the north and west is designated as Urban Greenspace and land to the south west, south east and east enjoys a similar designation and an additional layer of protection via Key Urban Landscape designation. The land outside the site to the north west forms part of a Woodland Opportunity Area.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The 2006 outline application sought planning permission for a residential scheme. All existing buildings would be demolished allowing the site to be redeveloped for housing. This application seeks to extend the timescales for the submission of Reserved Matters by a further 3 years.

Page 35 2.2 The application was submitted in outline form only. The only detailed matter was the means of access into the site. All other matters were reserved for future consideration. The illustrative sketch layout plan showed 164 dwellings, though that layout is unlikely to be unacceptable at the reserved matters stage as the site is highly visible and therefore a more imaginative layout would be sought. The applicant was made aware of this at the time of granting the last consent, and the local planning authority maintain the position that any detailed scheme will have to be more innovative in terms of layout.

2.3 Access would be taken via a replacement access road in a similar position to the current Quernmore Road access point. This road would have a width of 6.7m with a 1.8m footpath.

2.4 As stated above, with the exception of access, all matters are reserved, so landscaping and boundary treatments are not detailed within the 2006 outline submission.

3.0 Site History

3.1 A number of relevant applications relating to this site have previously been received by the Local Planning Authority. These include:

Application Number Proposal Decision 06/00661/OUT Redevelopment of the site for residential use Approved

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and internal consultees:

Consultees Response County Planning The Director of Strategy and Policy considers that the proposed development conforms to the North West of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS).

County Highways No objection to the time limit being extended. However, the highway conditions as stated in application 06/00661/OUT are still applicable and should be repeated in the approval to this application.

Environment No objections to the extension of the ti me limit but have the following comments: Agency Condition 15 of permission 06/00661/OUT requires that foul and surface water disposal be approved prior to development commencing. Surface water discharged from the site should be attenuated to existing site levels or less and the Agency recommends that this be done by means of a sustainable drainage system (SUDS). They also recommend that the residential development should meet Level 3 or better of the Code of Sustainable Homes.

United Utilities No objections, subject to several requirements in respect of surface water discharge, foul drainage connections and separate water meters to each residential unit. The full list of advice would be provided for the applicant should permission be granted.

Environmental No objection provided all previously imposed conditions are included. Health Tree Protection No objection to the extension of time. The impact upon trees has been previously Officer assessed in 2006. However, there are two planning conditions which relate to trees and which must be satisfied prior to the commencement of any future development of the site, namely; Condition 10 : requiring a landscape scheme to be submitted and agreed in writing prior to the commencement of any site development works; and Condition 22 : A scheme for the protection of trees must be submitted and agreed in writing prior to the commencement of any site development works.

Property Services No objection. Page 36

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No correspondence has been received at the time of compiling this report. Any comments subsequently received will be reported verbally.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Guidance Notes (PPG)

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) - provides generic advice for all new built development. Sites should be capable of optimising the full site boundary and should deliver an appropriate mix of uses, green and other public spaces, safe and accessible environments and visually pleasing architecture. The prudent use of natural resources and assets, and the encouragement of sustainable modes of transport are important components of this advice. This advice is echoed in PPG 13 - Transport. A high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources, conserving and enhancing wildlife species and habitats and the promotion of biodiversity.

PPS3 (Housing) - illustrates the need for good quality residential development in sustainable locations which have good access to a range of services and facilities. The use of previously developed (brownfield) land is an explicit objective, as is the delivery of different types of affordable housing to meet local housing needs.

PPG13 (Transport) - encourages sustainable travel, ideally non-motorised forms of transport such as walking and cycling, but also other means like public transport. The use of the car should be minimised. This can be encouraged by the location, layout and design of new developments.

6.2 Regional Spatial Strategy - adopted September 2008

Policy DP2 (Promote Sustainable Communities) - fostering sustainable relationships between homes, workplaces and other concentrations of regularly used services and facilities, improving the built and natural environment, conserving the region’s heritage, promoting community safety and security including flood risk, reviving local economies, promoting physical exercise through opportunities for sport and formal / informal recreation, walking and cycling.

Policy DP4 (Make Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure) - development should accord with the following sequential approach: first, using existing buildings (including conversion) within settlements, and previously developed land within settlements.

Policy DP5 (Reduce the Need to Travel, Increase Accessibility) - development should be located so as to reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and to enable people as far as possible to meet their needs locally. All new development should be genuinely accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, and priority will be given to locations where such access is already available.

Policy DP7 (Promote Environmental Quality) - understanding and respecting the character and distinctiveness of places and landscapes, the protection and enhancement of the historic environment, promoting good quality design in new development and ensuring that development respects its setting, reclaiming derelict land and remediating contaminated land and use land resources efficiently, maximising opportunities for the regeneration of derelict or dilapidated areas, promoting green infrastructure and the greening of towns and cities.

Policy L4 (Housing Provision) - address the housing requirements by ensuring the construction of a mix of appropriate house types, sizes, tenures and prices, encourage new homes to be built to Code for Sustainable Homes standards, promote the use of the Lifetime Homes standard, ensure that the transport networks (including public transport, pedestrian and cycle) can accommodate additional demand generated by new housing; and maximise the re-use of vacant and under-used brownfield land and buildings.

Policy L5 (Affordable Housing) - developments should secure the provision of affordable housing, which should remain affordable and available in perpetuity.

Page 37 Policy RT2 (Managing Travel Demand) - measures to discourage car use (including the incorporation of maximum parking standards) should consider improvements to and promotion of public transport, walking and cycling. Major new developments should be located where there is good access to public transport backed by effective provision for pedestrians and cyclists to minimise the need to travel by private car.

Policy RT9 (Walking and Cycling) - encourage the delivery of integrated networks of continuous, attractive and safe routes for walking and cycling to widen accessibility and capitalise on their potential environmental, social and health benefits.

Policy EM16 (Energy Conservation & Efficiency) - ensure that the developer's approach to energy is based on minimising consumption and demand, promoting maximum efficiency and minimum waste in all aspects of development and energy consumption.

Policy EM18 (Decentralised Energy Supply) - new non residential developments above a threshold of 1,000m² and all residential developments comprising 10 or more units should secure at least 10% of their predicted energy requirements from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources.

6.3 Lancaster District Local Plan - adopted April 2004 (saved policies)

Policy H3 (Housing Opportunity Sites) - Nightingale Hall Farm is allocated as a Housing Opportunity Site.

Policy H12 (Layout, Design and Use of Materials) - new housing developments will only be permitted which exhibit a high quality of design and local distinctiveness.

Policy H19 (Site Layout and Amenities) – in Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth, new residential development within existing housing areas will be permitted where there is no loss of open/green spaces, it does not adversely effect the amenities of nearby residents, it provides high standard of amenity, and it makes satisfactory provision for disposal of sewerage, waste water, servicing, access and car and cycle parking.

Policy E27 (Woodland Opportunity Areas) - within theses areas the Council will seek to establish new woodlands using predominantly native species and allowing where practical for public access and the protection and enhancement of nature conservation interests. Development which would prejudice the establishment of new woodlands in these areas will not be permitted.

Policy E29 (Urban Greenspaces) - these areas will be protected from development and where appropriate enhanced. Exceptionally, essential education or community related development or the limited expansion of existing uses will be permitted.

Policy E31 (Key Urban Landscape Areas) - these areas will be conserved and important natural features safeguarded. Development will only be permitted which preserves the open nature of the area and the character and appearance of its surroundings.

Policy T9 (Providing for Buses in New Developments) - seeks to locate development, which will significantly increase the demand for travel as close as possible to existing or proposed bus services (i.e. within a 5 minute walk or 400m).

Policy T17 (Travel Plans) - requirement to produce a Travel Plan for development likely to generate large numbers of daily journeys.

Policy T26 and T27 (Footpaths and Cycleways) - requirements to include cycle and pedestrian links for new schemes.

Policy R21 (Access for People with Disabilities) - requires disabled access provision.

6.4 Lancaster District Core Strategy - adopted July 2008

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) - development should be located in an area where it is convenient to walk, cycle or travel by public transport between homes, workplaces, shops and other facilities, must not result in unacceptable flood risk or drainage problems, does not have a significant Page 38 adverse impact on a site of nature conservation or archaeological importance, uses energy efficient design and construction practices, incorporates renewable energy technologies, creates publicly accessible open space, and is compatible with the character of the surrounding landscape.

Policy SC2 (Urban Concentration) - 90% of new dwellings to be provided in the urban areas of Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth.

Policy SC4 (Meeting the District's Housing Requirements) - the Council will aim to maximise the opportunities offered by the development of new dwellings to redress imbalances in the local housing market, achieve housing that genuinely addresses identified local housing need and secure units of affordable housing in perpetuity.

Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) - new development must reflect and enhance the positive characteristics of its surroundings, creating landmark buildings of genuine and lasting architectural merit.

Policy SC6 (Crime and Community Safety) - encourage high quality design, incorporating "secure by Design" principles, avoid car dominated environments, remove dereliction and eyesore sites, achieving greater use of pedestrian and cycle networks, parks and open spaces in particular the key greenspace systems

Policy SC8 (Recreation and Open Space) - new residential development will make appropriate provision for formal and informal sports provision in line with needs identified in the Open Space and Recreation Study.

Policy ER7 (Renewable Energy) - to maximise the proportion of energy generated in the District from renewable sources where compatible with other sustainability objectives, including the use of energy efficient design, materials and construction methods.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) - development should protect and enhance nature conservation sites and greenspaces, minimise the use of land and non-renewable energy, properly manage environmental risks such as flooding, make places safer, protect habitats and the diversity of wildlife species, and conserve and enhance landscapes.

Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) - this policy seeks to reduce the need to travel by car whilst improving walking and cycling networks and providing better public transport services.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Residential Use

The principle of residential use on this site was initially established through the Local Plan when the site was designated as a Housing Opportunity Site. It was reinforced by the approval of the 2006 outline application.

However, in terms of housing mix and tenure the Council's policy on affordable housing has changed since 2007 when planning permission was granted. As the Council's current affordable housing target is 40%, it is expected that 25% affordable housing provision would be achieved on this site as set out in the previous s106 agreement. The previous s106 agreement requires 100% shared ownership, which does not reflect the local housing need in this area of Lancaster. Therefore the s106 should be revised to include 67% social rented and 33% shared ownership or other intermediate housing, unless there is evidence to show this is unviable. Its viability can be tested in due course against the recent Affordable Housing Viability Study which was commissioned by the Council for the District and would require detailed evidence of why any scheme could not deliver 25% affordable housing based on a 67:33 ratio between social rent and intermediate housing.

The Council's Housing Department recommends that the development should incorporate a mix of dwelling sizes. They go on to suggest that the properties should be built to Lifetime Homes Standard, with some designed for wheelchair access. This latter point would comply with the Council's Local Plan Policy R21.

Page 39 7.2 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency

Since outline planning permission was granted in 2007, the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) was adopted in September 2008 requiring at least 10% of the development’s predicted energy requirements to be provided from on site renewable energy sources (Policy RM18). Likewise, the Code for Sustainable Homes has been introduced. The Environment Agency recommends that this development meets at least level 3 of the Code. Conditions relating to these 2 points should be incorporated into any decision if permission is granted for the extension of time.

7.3 Other Matters

Although there have been new policy documents at the national, regional and local level since 2006, none of the new policies adversely affect the proposal to redevelop this brownfield site. This is reinforced by County planning’s comments that the proposal is in conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 A Section 106 (s106) agreement was signed by the applicant in relation to planning permission 06/00661/OUT. The obligations set out in the agreement were:

1. An affordable housing contribution of up to 25% provision on a shared ownership basis (dependent on viability of the development at the time of consideration of the Reserved Matters).

2. A transport contribution towards bus services and footpath links.

3. A highway improvement contribution towards the improvements to the Quernmore Road / Derwent Road junction.

4. Provision of on-site open space, play areas and kick-about areas, transfer to the Council at a simple fee of £1 and provision of a commuted sum of £20,000 for ongoing maintenance.

If this current application is approved, a revised s106 agreement is required to include the obligations listed above with the affordable housing provision set at 25% with a 67/33 split between social rent and intermediate housing.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Subject to the signing and completion of a revised s106 agreement, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below, which include conditions relating to Code for Sustainable Homes (at least level 3) and on site renewable energy production (at least 10% of the predicted ongoing energy demand of the residential units).

Recommendation

That Outline Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to a revised s106 agreement requiring:

1. An affordable housing contribution of 25% provision (67% social rented and 33% intermediate housing) dependent on viability of the development at the time of consideration of the Reserved Matters

2. A transport contribution towards bus services and footpath links

3. A highway improvement contribution towards the improvements to the Quernmore Road / Derwent Road junction

4. Provision of on-site open space, children's equipped play areas and kick-about areas, transfer to the Council at a simple fee of £1 and provision of a commuted sum of £20,000 for ongoing maintenance and the following conditions:

Page 40 1. Outline permission - Reserved Matters required (except access) 2. Travel Plan - details required 3. Adoptable highway details required - constructed and completed prior to occupation 4. Off-site highway improvements - details required, then approved scheme to be constructed and completed prior to occupation 5. New pedestrian and cycle routes - details required 6. Provision of garages and car parking 7. Cycle parking - details required 8. Wheel cleaning facilities (temporary during construction) 9. Boundary treatments - details required 10. Landscaping - details required 11. Protection of trees and hedges during construction 12. Retention of trees and hedges 13. Provision of equipped children's play facilities, open space and kick-about areas - details and phasing plan required 14. 10 year maintenance of recreational facilities referred to in Condition 13 15. Hours of construction - 0800-1800 Monday to Saturday 16. Construction noise and vibration 17. Standard contaminated land condition 18. Contaminated land - importation of soil, materials and hardcore 19. Contaminated land - prevention of new contamination 20. Bunding of tanks 21. Scheme for dust control 22. Separate drainage system 23. Use of SUDS 24. Refuse storage - details required 25. Removal of Permitted Development rights 26. At least 10% of the predicted energy requirements to be met by on site renewable energy generation 27. Achieve at least level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 41 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 13

A1 3 7 June 2010 10/00243/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Booths Erection of an extension to rear of existing Scotland Road Supermarket Carnforth Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr Graham Booth Mr Keith Jones

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

15 June 2010 N/A

Case Officer Mr Andrew Drummond

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval subject to conditions

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The 0.98 ha application site is located just to the north of Carnforth Town Centre. It includes the existing Booths supermarket, its service area, the access road and a 155m section of the A6. The land slopes considerably downwards from east to west. The area to the north is utilised by Norman Jacksons Contractors Ltd as a builder’s yard.

1.2 The site is accessed by car from Scotland Road (A6). Whilst pedestrians can also use this access road, the main footpath link is to Market Street via Ashtrees Way. Bus stops are found both on Market Street and Scotland Road, with buses serving many of the surrounding settlements. The railway station is only a matter of a few minutes walk away, again via Ashtrees Way.

1.3 The supermarket occupies a position within the Town Centre boundary as defined by the Lancaster District Local Plan.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application seeks planning permission for 2 extensions to increase the amount of floorspace on all 3 levels of the existing food store. No demolition is required, though small elements of remedial work will be required to the existing building to 'stitch' the proposed extensions into the existing fabric.

2.2 The proposed extensions would provide an additional 1306 sq m of internal space, of which 492 sq.m would be used as retail sales floorspace. The main extension would be located to the rear of the existing store into an area that currently forms part of the service yard. Another addition is proposed to the south elevation, close to the entrance. The extensions would assist the foodstore operator (Booths) in improving:

The product lines and fittings in the main store;
The public facilities, such as the café and new WCs with disabled toilets and baby changing facilities;
The staff facilities and offices on the first floor; Page 42
The loading/unloading facilities (including a new service lift); and
The personnel lift.

The size of the proposed store is determined by the grading and constraints of the site. The new café is designed to present a welcoming feature to what is regarded as the front (south east) corner of the store. It is located adjacent to the toilets near the entrance/exit. The service core is located to the rear so to minimise disruption to the public using the store. The site levels mean that the loading/unloading service area c an be accommodated at basement level, mainly hidden from view. The new offices and staff facilities make use of the space on the first floor.

In terms of design, the proposal is sympathetic to the existing store, using a similar palate of materials so the proposed extension relates appropriately to the current building.

2.3 The main access would still be located on Scotland Road, but the junction alignment would be improved, as agreed with County Highways.

A car park, comprising 133 spaces (including 13 mobility spaces), would be predominantly situated between Scotland Road and the retail store, with a further 7 spaces provided to serve the doctors' surgery and a further 10 spaces to serve staff. Cycle parking is also identified to the frontage of the retail units.

The service yard would be retained, albeit reduced, to the western side of the site with access gained from a spur off the main access road. This spur would also be utilised by deliveries to Booths supermarket if the scheme is permitted.

Pedestrian access would be improved from Scotland Road, whilst a defined footpath created along the east side of the food store would enhance links to Market Street via the town centre car park.

2.4 The plans show limited landscaping, with new planting proposed to the north east corner of the store. A planting scheme to the adjacent town centre car park has previously been agreed as part of the 06/00798/FUL application (see Site History below).

3.0 Site History

3.1 A number of relevant applications relating to this site have previously been received by the Local Planning Authority. These include:

Application Number Proposal Decision 01/87/0773 Creation of a store and car park Approved 98/01135/OUT Extension to the existing store and a new traffic controlled Approved (but not light junction implemented) 06/00797/OUT Extension to the existing store Approved (but not implemented) 06/00798/FUL Remodel the entrance and re-orientate the car park Approved

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and internal consultees:

Consultee Response County Highways The Highway Authority is generally satisfied with the detail submitted in the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. However, due to additional traffic that will be generated by the development, County require improvements (MOVA technology) to the town centre crossroads. These improvements and the revised access junction arrangements should be provided by way of a Section 278 (highway) agreement, and implemented prior to occupation/opening for trading. The northbound bus stop on Scotland Road will also require upgrading and possibly relocating as part of the works. The pedestrian route across the access junction will require ‘see through’ boundary treatment to the hard landscaping area to the south to allow adequate Page 43 visibility. The car park arrangements as approved by 06/00798/FUL should be implemented and made available on a short stay basis only. Further work is required on the Travel Plan, and £3,000 is requested by County for providing advice.

Environmental No comments received within the statutory consultation period. Health Carnforth Town No comments received within the statutory consultation period. Council

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No correspondence has been received at the time of compiling this report. Any comments subsequently received will be reported verbally.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Guidance Notes (PPG)

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) - provides generic advice for all new built development. Sites should be capable of optimising the full site boundary and should deliver an appropriate mix of uses, green and other public spaces, safe and accessible environments and visually pleasing architecture. The prudent use of natural resources and assets, and the encouragement of sustainable modes of transport are important components of this advice. This advice is echoed in PPG 13 - Transport. A high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources, conserving and enhancing wildlife species and habitats and the promotion of biodiversity.

PPS 4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) - All planning applications for economic development should be assessed against the following impact considerations:

whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change;
the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured;
whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions;
the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives; and
the impact on local employment

In terms of retail development, the emphasis is on the protection of existi ng town and local centres. The proposal should not have an adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer.

PPG13 (Transport) - encourages sustainable travel, ideally non-motorised forms of transport such as walking and cycling, but also other means like public transport. The use of the car should be minimised. This can be encouraged by the location, layout and design of new developments.

6.2 Regional Spatial Strategy - adopted September 2008

Policy DP2 (Promote Sustainable Communities) - fostering sustainable relationships between homes, workplaces and other concentrations of regularly used services and facilities, improving the built and natural environment, conserving the region’s heritage, promoting community safety and security including flood risk, reviving local economies especially in areas in need of regeneration and housing restructuring such as Morecambe, promoting physical exercise through opportunities for sport and formal / informal recreation, walking and cycling.

Policy DP4 (Make Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure) - development should accord Page 44 with the following sequential approach: first, using existing buildings (including conversion) within settlements, and previously developed land within settlements.

Policy DP5 (Reduce the Need to Travel, Increase Accessibility) - development should be located so as to reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and to enable people as far as possible to meet their needs locally. All new development should be genuinely accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, and priority will be given to locations where such access is already available.

Policy DP7 (Promote Environmental Quality) - understanding and respecting the character and distinctiveness of places and landscapes, the protection and enhancement of the historic environment, promoting good quality design in new development and ensuring that development respects its setting, reclaiming derelict land and remediating contaminated land and use land resources efficiently, maximising opportunities for the regeneration of derelict or dilapidated areas, promoting green infrastructure and the greening of towns and cities.

Policy W5 (Retail development) - promote retail investment where it assists in the regeneration and economic growth of the town and city centres. In considering proposals and schemes any investment made should be consistent with the scale and function of the centre, should not undermine the vitality and viability of any other centre or result in the creation of unsustainable shopping patterns.

Policy RT2 (Managing Travel Demand) - measures to discourage car use (including the incorporation of maximum parking standards) should consider improvements to and promotion of public transport, walking and cycling. Major new developments should be located where there is good access to public transport backed by effective provision for pedestrians and cyclists to minimise the need to travel by private car.

Policy RT9 (Walking and Cycling) - encourage the delivery of integrated networks of continuous, attractive and safe routes for walking and cycling to widen accessibility and capitalise on their potential environmental, social and health benefits.

Policy EM10 (A Regional Approach to Waste Management) - promote and require the provision of sustainable new waste management infrastructure, facilities and systems that contribute to the development of the North West by reducing harm to the environment and improving the efficiency of resources (waste management principles set out in Policy EM11).

Policy EM16 (Energy Conservation & Efficiency) - ensure that the developer's approach to energy is based on minimising consumption and demand, promoting maximum efficiency and minimum waste in all aspects of development and energy consumption.

Policy EM18 (Decentralised Energy Supply) - new non residential developments above a threshold of 1,000m² and all residential developments comprising 10 or more units should secure at least 10% of their predicted energy requirements from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources.

6.3 Lancaster District Local Plan - adopted April 2004 (saved policies)

Policy S1 (Retail Hierarchy) - new shopping development, other than small local shops, will be permitted only within the identified District centres. Development will only be permitted that is appropriate to the size and function of the centre concerned.

Policy T9 (Providing for Buses in New Developments) - seeks to locate development, which will significantly increase the demand for travel as close as possible to existing or proposed bus services (i.e. within a 5 minute walk or 400m).

Policy T26 and T27 (Footpaths and Cycleways) - Requirements to include cycle and pedestrian links for new schemes.

6.4 Lancaster District Core Strategy - adopted July 2008

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) - Development should be located in an area where it is convenient to walk, cycle or travel by public transport between homes, workplaces, shops and other facilities, must not result in unacceptable flood risk or drainage problems, does not have a significant Page 45 adverse impact on a site of nature conservation or archaeological importance, uses energy efficient design and construction practices, incorporates renewable energy technologies, creates publicly accessible open space, and is compatible with the character of the surrounding landscape.

Policy SC2 (Urban Concentration) - 95% of new employment floorspace to be provided in the urban areas of Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth.

Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) - new development must reflect and enhance the positive characteristics of its surroundings, creating landmark buildings of genuine and lasting architectural merit.

Policy ER4 (Town Centres and Shopping) - to maintain the vitality and viability of its town centres, provide services as locally as possible and minimise the need to shop by car. Carnforth Town Centre to develop a District centre role as a key service centre, market town and visitor destination.

Policy ER5 (New Retail Development) - new comparison retailing will be focused on Lancaster or central Morecambe. New local food retailing to be provided in town or local centres, or at an appropriate scale in sustainable locations in areas of deficiency.

Policy ER7 (Renewable Energy) - To maximise the proportion of energy generated in the District from renewable sources where compatible with other sustainability objectives, including the use of energy efficient design, materials and construction methods.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) - Development should protect and enhance nature conservation sites and greenspaces, minimise the use of land and non-renewable energy, properly manage environmental risks such as flooding, make places safer, protect habitats and the diversity of wildlife species, and conserve and enhance landscapes.

Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) - This policy seeks to reduce the need to travel by car whilst improving walking and cycling networks and providing better public transport services.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Retail

The size of the extension permitted in 2006 was 444sq.m (GIA), which equated to 221sq.m of additional sales floorspace. In 1998, an extension of 641sq.m (GIA) was approved, which equated to 780sq.m of additional sales floorspace (due to some internal changes to convert existing ancillary space to retail floorspace).

The current proposal seeks planning permission for an additional 1306sq.m of internal space, of which 492sq.m would be used as retail sales floorspace. This would result in a foodstore with a net sales floorspace of 1,383 sq m.

The extension, if approved and implemented, would provide employment for the equivalent of 18 additional full time persons.

The proposal lies within Carnforth’s Primary Retail Area and is an in centre site. Accordingly there is no need to demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach and it does not raise issues of impact as defined by PPS4.

7.2 Transport (including air quality)

As discussed above the site falls within Carnforth’s Town Centre, just off Scotland Road (A6). This road, as well as Market Street, is operated by buses serving various routes. In addition, there is pedestrian access via Ashtrees Way to the rail station. In terms of accessibility, the site is well served by public transport within a 5 minute walk.

However, it is not as accessible by car despite its proximity to the A6 due to technical difficulties with the access arrangements. This matter has been subject to a previous planning application (see site history above), and a solution has been designed in liaison with County Highways. The revised Page 46 access would provide a priority right hand turning lane both within the site (to turn out of the site towards Carnforth crossroads) and also a priority right hand turning lane on the main carriageway (A6) to turn into the site (if driving along Scotland Road from the north). This solution will help cars move more freely into and out of the site. However, if the reconfiguration does not work in the future due to traffic growth, County Highways has advised that a traffic light controlled junction may be required, though this is not ideal due to its proximity to the traffic lights at the main crossroads (Kellet Road, Market Street and A6). This flexibility has been built into the design. County Highways has challenged some of the findings within the submitted Transport Assessment, especially relating to the impact of the development on queue lengths at the main crossroads in Carnforth. To assist with vehicular movements at this junction, County Highways is seeking the developer to install MOVA technology at the traffic lights of the main crossroads.

The revised access would also facilitate improvements to pedestrian access from the A6, making the bus stops easier and safer to reach on Scotland Road. County Highways has made mention of this feature in their comments as they seek ‘see through’ boundary treatment to the hard landscaping area to the south of the site entrance to allow adequate visibility for pedestrians. A further pedestrian route is also illustrated on the submitted plans to Market Street along the frontage of the supermarket. This route should be well designed to ensure that this connection is clear, safe and well used. Connectivity such as this is strongly promoted in the new PPS4, and therefore appropriately delivered as part of this scheme if permitted.

Despit e the good connections by public transport, the development will attract a number of car trips. It will be necessary for any planning permission to be conditional on the proposed car park reconfiguration (06/00798/FUL) with cycle parking to be implemented prior to the extended store opening for trading.

The plans submitted show the pedestrian routes and the cycle storage area, and the application highlights the public transport facilities in the vicinity of the site, but these need to be utilised if the scheme is to actually deliver sustainable transport solutions. A key document to help the developer realise these aspirations is the Travel Plan. A Travel Plan was submitted with the application, but as can be seen from County Highways’ comments, further work is required in this regard.

A part of Carnforth’s centre has been designated as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and as such developments must be assessed for their impact upon the area. The Highway Authority support the use of MOVA technology at the main crossroad in Carnforth to assist with the movement of traffic, a significant contributor to the poor air quality experienced, especially on Market Street. Conditions requiring this off site highway improvement, a Construction Plan and dust control should be imposed on the permission should planning be granted to ensure that necessary measures are taken to prevent the development having an adverse impact on the AQMA.

7.3 Design (including energy efficiency and renewable energy)

A mixture of face blockwork, render, glass, and mansard tiling will maintain a more unified building structure appearance. This is an acceptable approach to take. The proposal adds small elements of modern design that are sensitive to the overall aesthetics of the building whilst adopting a fairly conservative approach to the new build.

The proposal also takes a pragmatic approach to the internal layout. The delivery and storage areas are contained in the basement, whilst the first floor area accommodates staff fac ilities and offices. This leaves the ground floor as the publicly accessible space comprising the main store, café and public toilets.

The applicant, Booths, is committed to high sustainable building and practices. Where possible, materials will be from renewable sources, and solar tubes will be incorporated. Booths is phasing out the use of HCFC refrigerant gasses. This almost eliminates the climate change impact of refrigerant gas leakage. The Carnforth store will be fitted with a similar system during the proposed upgrade. Booths is also currently fitting stores with an innovative refrigeration heat recovery system that diverts heat normally wasted from the refrigeration plant to an underfloor heating system. As the Carnforth store is already heated with an underfloor system, it is ideally placed to adapt this highly sustainable heating system during the proposed upgrade. Underfloor heating makes use of low grade heat, something which is freely available from a supermarket refrigeration system. The heating system enables a direct offset on the consumption of natural gas. Page 47

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 No requests have been received for any planning obligations. The extensive highways works required to support the development shall be secured by way of a s278 agreement.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The principle of an extension to the town centre supermarket was previously established through earlier planning permissions. However, since planning was granted for a similar extension in 2006, PPS4 was published. This proposal has been assessed against this new national planning policy and is deemed to be accepted. Therefore it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions listed below.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year timescale 2. Development to accord with plans 3. At least 10% on site renewable energy production for the extension 4. Standard landscaping condition, including details of boundary treatments to the area of hard landscaping south of the access junction 5. Adoptable highway detail required 6. Off site highway improvements - MOVA technology to be installed to the traffic lights at Carnforth's main crossroads, upgrade and possible relocation of the northbound bus stop on Scotland Road and ‘see through’ boundary treatment to the hard landscaping area to the south of the site entrance to allow adequate visibility. 7. Provision of car parking 8. Mobility parking 9. Cycle parking 10. Travel Plan – details required 11. Construction plan – routing plan for construction traffic 12. Provision of loading and unloading facilities 13. Hours of construction – 0800-1800 Mon to Fri and 0800-1400 Sat only 14. Restriction of opening hours – 0800-2200 Mon to Sat and 0800-1600 Sun 15. Hours of delivery - 0800-1800 16. Scheme for dust control 17. Standard contaminated land condition 18. Contaminated land - importation of soil, materials and hardcore 19. Contaminated land - prevention of new contamination 20. Bunding of tanks 21. Construction noise and vibration 22. Scheme for odour control - cooking and food 23. Ventilation details 24. External lighting- details required 25. Wheel cleaning facilities during construction 26. Refuse storage

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 48 AgendaAgenda Item Item 14 Committee Date Application Number

A14 7.6.2010 10/00152/DPA

Application Site Proposal

Town Hall Listed building application for renewal of rainwater goods Dalton Square

Lancaster

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Lancaster City Council Mrs S Sealby

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

1 June 2010 None

Case Officer Petra Williams

Departure No

Subject to no objections by GONW consent to be Summary of Recommendation granted with conditions.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application has been brought before Committee Members as the subject property is in City Council ownership.

1.2 The application site is the Lancaster Town Hall situated in Dalton Square in the core of the Lancaster city centre. The Town Hall is a Grade ll* Listed Building and is made up of sandstone ashlar under slate roofing. The site is also within the City Conservation Area.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 Due to ongoing problems with maintenance of rainwater goods within the internal lightwell areas because of poor access, it is proposed that they are replaced with aluminium powder coated products. Existing waste pipes are a mix of PVC and cast iron and these will be replaced with grey PVC.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The Town Hall has an extensive planning history which largely relates to matters of maintenance and repair. None materially affect this application.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Page 49 Statutory Consultee Response English Heritage This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of the LPA’s expert conservation advice.

Conservation It is important to ensure that this important building is watertight and that it remains so . Officer No objections subject to appropriate conditions.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No representations received.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Lancaster District Local Plan (LDLP): Saved Policy E33 of the Local Plan refers to proposals involving external alterations to Listed Buildings. It states that alterations which would have an adverse effect on the architectural or historic character or interest of the buildings or their surroundings will not be permitted.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The key issue is to ensure that this important building remains weatherproofed. It is also acknowledged that access into the light wells is restrictive and therefore maintenance is a problem.

7.2 Given that the light well area is not a visible area, the use of powder coated aluminium rainwater goods is considered acceptable. These are quite convincing alternatives to cast iron and they require very little maintenance (other than periodic cleaning).

7.3 However, as soil and waste pipes are not manufactured in aluminium the only alternative other than cast iron, which has greater maintenance implications, is plastic. The Conservation Officer is satisfied with this proposal subject to the submission of details.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 There are no planning obligations to consider.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The proposed work is necessary in order to solve a maintenance problem within this Grade ll* Listed Building. The replacement rainwater goods will not be highly visible and the works are fully supported by the local planning authority’s Conservation Officer.

9.2 In conclusion, this proposal will not adversely affect the character or the setting of listed building. The works are considered sympathetic and it is on this basis that Members are advised that this application can be supported.

Recommendation

That the application be referred to Government Office North West with a recommendation that PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to conditions as follows:

1. Standard listed building time limit

2. Development in accordance with approved plans

3. Full details of the rainwater goods, including the outlets, profiles of the gutters and their means of attachment;

4. Full details of the plastic soil system to be used;

5. Method for making good the glazed bricks. Page 50

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 51 Agenda Item 15

PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS REGULATORY COMMITTEE

Enforcement Update – Low Mill, Caton-with-Littledale

Monday 7 June 2010

Report of Head of Regeneration and Policy

PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report updates Members on the enforcement investigation in respect of unauthorised development at Low Mill, Caton with Littledale. Members are requested to consider authorising the enforcement action recommended by Officers.

This report is public.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) That enforcement action is pursued against unauthorised UPVC windows inserted in Low Mill, Caton with Littledale.

(2) That in determining to pursue enforcement action via the serving of Enforcement Notices, the Committee seeks to agree appropriate periods for compliance with the said Notices.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Low Mill is a former cotton mill within Caton with Littledale built in the eighteenth century, but largely rebuilt in 1838. It is an impressive four-storey sandstone structure underneath a slate roof. Planning permission was granted in the mid- 1980’s to convert the Mill to residential units. A further permission was granted in 1994 changing the number of units from 38 to 46.

1.2 Low Mill is a Grade II Listed Building (listed in 1967) and as such, any development or alteration that affects the character or appearance of the building will require Listed Building Consent. Unlike most other aspects of planning law, the carrying out of unauthorised works to a Listed Building is a criminal offence.

Page 52

2.0 Details of the Enforcement Case

2.1 Before outlining details of the case, it is perhaps fair to suggest that the national planning enforcement process is sometimes misunderstood. Local Planning Authority enforcement powers are entirely discretionary. Where there are cases which involve unauthorised works (even if they involve a criminal offence), the Local Planning Authority can resolve not to pursue enforcement if it is decided that it is not expedient to do so. In making a judgement on these matters, Local Planning Authorities have to satisfy themselves regarding the degree of harm caused by the unauthorised work. This harm could be upon residential amenity; it could be the impact upon the general locality or, as in this case, it could be upon the setting and appearance of a Listed Building.

2.2 In 2009, the (then) Planning Service was alerted to the unauthorised insertion of replacement windows within Low Mill and its adjoining dwellings. It then proceeded to investigate by looking at each window on the building, to determine whether they had been replaced and if so, what type of window had been inserted. The Service also considered whether or not any of the works had the prior benefit of Listed Building Consent.

2.3 Where windows had been replaced on a ‘like-for-like’ basis (i.e. using identical window proportions, identical openings and identical materials), then Listed Building Consent would not be required and no further action would be necessary.

2.4 Following an on-site investigation, Officers of the Service found that there were four different types of window in the Mill. These were:

(i) The original timber windows (or exact timber replacements);

(ii) Replacement windows which have retained a timber frame, but have applied timber glazing bars to the outside of the window, in an attempt to match the original windows;

(iii) Replacement windows which have retained a timber frame, but have UPVC (plastic) dividers/bars sandwiched between the double-glazing, in an attempt to match the original windows;

(iv) Replacement with (fully) UPVC windows.

2.5 In respect of (i), there is no further action required. In respect of (ii), these windows have a thick profile and, on close inspection, look slightly different to the original windows. However, the occupants have clearly attempted to replicate the window form using natural materials, and on balance it is concluded that it would not be expedient to pursue enforcement action.

2.6 With regards to (iii), again these windows have retained some of the character of the previous windows, but are more noticeable as differing from the original window form and as a result they weaken the aesthetics of the Mill frontage and the symmetry of the window arrangement. In respect of (iv), UPVC replacements are typically ‘bulkier’ and generally considered to be unsympathetic on a listed structure such as this.

Page 53

2.7 In respect of those properties that have used UPVC dividers, or have replaced a window/door in its entirety with a UPVC one, the numbers are as follows:

• 9 flats which have replacement windows with a timber frame but with UPVC dividers/bars;

• 2 flats where some of the windows and/or doors have UPVC replacements.

2.8 There was also a complaint regarding the insertion of new windows in the dwellings that are attached to Low Mill. In investigating this, the Local Planning Authority had to consider how far the ‘Listing’ extended, and in doing so it had regard to previous case law. The key to determining this seemed to be whether the building was ancillary to the principal Listed Building. In this case, the properties were dwellings in their own right, added during conversion of the Mill. Whilst the dwellings were designed and built with the intention of making the properties an integral part of the complex, it would, in the view of the Local Planning Authority, be difficult to argue that the dwellings form part of the listing. In any event, there is a justifiable argument to say that it would not be expedient to pursue enforcement action in respect of the attached dwellings anyway, given their much later construction and the domestic paraphernalia that is now associated with some of them (garden fencing, trellises, moveable garden structures and play equipment). This however, is a very different scenario compared to the flats in the Mill.

3.0 Details of Consultation

3.1 The matter has been the subject of an enforcement investigation, initially following a complaint from a third party. Letters were sent to residents within the Low Mill complex in February 2010 advising occupants that there was an enforcement investigation underway, and that at that time no decision as to the next course of action had been taken, but that they would be kept informed of further developments. There has been no further communication or consultation, pending consideration of this report.

3.2 It is anticipated that the Local Planning Authority will contact each of the affected properties once the Planning & Highways Regulatory Committee has determined which course of action it should pursue.

4.0 Options and Options Analysis (including risk assessment)

4.1 Low Mill is an important Listed Building and the issue of window replacement, without Listed Building Consent, must be taken seriously where it is judged to have affected the appearance and character of the structure.

4.2 There are a number of options available to Members in terms of this enforcement case. These are:

• Option 1 – To decide that it is not expedient to pursue enforcement against any of the UPVC replacement windows.

• Option 2 – To decide that it is expedient to pursue enforcement only against the fully-UPVC replacement windows/doors with immediate effect.

Page 54

• Option 3 – To decide that it is expedient to pursue enforcement against the fully- UPVC replacement window and doors, and also against the replacement windows with the UPVC dividers, with immediate effect.

• Option 4 – To decide that it is expedient to pursue enforcement against the fully- UPVC replacement window and doors, and the replacement UPVC divider windows, but to require different periods of compliance with any Enforcement Notice served, dependent of the type of window inserted.

4.3 Option 1 would effectively close the enforcement investigation. However it would set a precedent for further window/door replacement in Low Mill, thus weakening the appearance and character of this impressive building. It could also lead to potentially difficult situations involving other unauthorised Listed Building work in the district, whereby occupants may seek to use Low Mill as a precedent for retaining their own alterations without the need for applying for the appropriate consent.

4.4 Option 2 would ultimately involve the serving of an Enforcement Notice upon those owners/occupants who reside in flats which have replaced their timber windows with a fully-UPVC alternative. The Enforcement Notice would specify a time period (e.g. 6 months, or longer/shorter as considered appropriate) for the removal of the windows and replacement with timber windows to match the originals. There are obvious cost implications for residents who are faced with replacing these windows.

4.5 Option 3 would ultimately involve the serving of an Enforcement Notice upon all occupants who have replaced windows/doors with types that are not wholly timber. The Enforcement Notice time period for compliance could be 6 months, or whatever is deemed appropriate. As with Option 2, there are significant cost implications for residents faced with replacing the windows.

4.6 Option 4 would again lead to the serving of an Enforcement Notice, but in this scenario the times for compliance could be commensurate to the type of window installed. For example, for the most obvious (and inappropriate) cases where fully- UPVC windows have been inserted, an Enforcement Notice could specify a relatively short time period for compliance, such as 6 months. For those windows which have timber surrounds, but also have UPVC dividers/inserts, then the Enforcement Notice could specify that the windows are replaced within 15 years, which is approximately the lifespan of the existing windows. This would allow residents to plan towards the cost of replacement windows. The outstanding Enforcement Notice would be revealed on any land searches should the property be sold or disposed of and so it would be in the occupiers’ interests to replace the windows prior to any sale. The downside from a planning perspective would be that some of the unauthorised windows would remain in situ for a lengthy period of time.

4.7 Like many enforcement cases, there is no easy solution to this problem. The Local Planning Authority could seek to enforce against all of the unauthorised windows in the Mill, and some would argue that this would send a message to other existing and future occupants of this building and other listed structures.

4.8 However the preferred option is Option 4. This is seen as being the option which removes the ‘worst-offending’ UPVC windows in the short-term, and would allow for the longer-term replacement of the UPVC-timber hybrid windows. It is considered that both types of window need to be removed to preserve the character and appearance of the Mill.

Page 55

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 The Committee is therefore requested to consider the options in this report. Option 4 is considered to achieve the long-term aim of maintaining the appearance and character of Low Mill. If the Committee decides to pursue one of the enforcement options, it would also be prudent to formally agree time limits for compliance with the eventual Enforcement Notices, perhaps in line with the time limits identified in Paragraph 4.6.

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability and Rural Proofing)

In reaching the recommended option, the Local Planning Authority has considered the impact upon residents, particularly in terms of the cost of replacing the unauthorised windows. It believes that the option recommended is a fair compromise which will ultimately achieve the objective of maintaining the appearance and character of the Listed Building.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The only potential cost implications to the Local Authority would relate to possible claims for costs should occupants of the flats involved succeed in appealing against an Enforcement Notice, and then succeed in alleging that the serving of the Notice was unreasonable. Given that the property in question is a Listed Building, and that it is a criminal offence to carry out works that alter the appearance or character of that building, this is considered unlikely.

SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS

None.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Replacement or alteration of windows in a Listed Building (in a manner that does not constitute like-for-like replacement) is a criminal offence and the serving of Enforcement Notices would be a commensurate response.

MONITORING OFFICER’S COMMENTS

No further comments.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact Officer: Mark Cassidy Telephone: 01524 582390 None. E-mail: [email protected] Ref: EN 09/00219/LB

Page 56 Agenda Item 16

LANCASTERCITY COUNCIL

APPLICATION NO DETAILS DECISION

09/00765/CU 52 Main Street, Heysham, Morecambe Change of use of Application Permitted Post Office to living accommodation for Mr S Goulding (Heysham South Ward)

09/01046/FUL 16 Penny Street, Lancaster, LA1 1UA Alterations to Application Permitted shop front for Mr Greg Martin (Dukes Ward)

09/01114/FUL Littledale Scout Campsite, Littledale Road, Brookhouse Application Permitted Erection of a toilet block for Lonsdale District Scout Council (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/01162/FUL Gardenia Lodge, Haverbreaks Road, Lancaster Single Application Permitted storey rear extension and two storey side extension for Mr & Mrs Gary Hammond (Scotforth West Ward)

09/01191/FUL Toad Hall, Burrow Road, Burrow Erection of a two storey Application Refused extension to front elevation for Mr John Handley (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

09/01222/FUL 42 Bridgeside, Carnforth, Lancashire Retrospective Application Refused application for the retention of decked area to the rear for Mrs Kathryn Hutchins (Carnforth Ward)

09/01268/FUL Winberry Heights, 8 Laburnum Park, Carnforth Erection Application Permitted of detached bungalow for Mr Martin Kearns (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00008/DIS Orchard House, Sunnyside Lane, Lancaster Discharge Request Completed of conditions nos 4 and 7 on application 07/00519 for Mr And Mrs Martin (Castle Ward)

10/00057/FUL Old School House, Stoney Lane, Ellel Erection of Application Permitted replacement dwelling and replacement garage/light industrial workshop for Mr K Foxcroft (Ellel Ward)

10/00063/FUL The Cedars, Starbank, Bay Horse Erection of a porch Application Refused and first floor balcony above to the north elevation, new rooflight and window to the southern elevation for Mr And Mrs P Mulvenna (Ellel Ward)

10/00070/FUL 79 Sulby Drive, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of single Application Refused storey extension to the side for Mr Al-Khaled (Scotforth West Ward)

10/00080/CU Littledale Hall, Littledale Road, Brookhouse Change of Application Permitted use of existing domestic garages and extension to form office accommodation to class B1 office use, ancillary to Littledale Hall Therapeutic Community for Mr Steve Leigh (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00097/FUL Restarigg Farm, Kirkby Lonsdale Road, Arkholme Application Permitted Installation of a 5kW domestic scale Micro Wind Turbine on a 10m mast for Mr Robert Walker (Kellet Ward)

10/00098/FUL Woodfield House, Moorside Road, Brookhouse Remove Application Permitted existing bay window and replace with a single storey Page 57 orangery for Dr R Willey (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00110/LB 53 Market Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Listed building Application Permitted consent for retention of facia signage and projecting sign for Mr Oliver Wilson-Fish (Dukes Ward)

10/00111/ADV 53 Market Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Application for Application Permitted retention of facia sign and erection of projecting sign for Mr Oliver Wilson-Fish (Dukes Ward)

10/00112/CU 53 Market Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Retrospective Application Permitted application for the change of use from A1 to A3 and use of footway adjacent to shopfront as a pavement cafe for Mr Oliver Wilson-Fish (Dukes Ward)

10/00114/ADV Howdens Joinery, 10 Northgate, Morecambe Installation Application Permitted of 3 no. elevation signs and 1 no. totem sign for Mr Mark Churchill (Westgate Ward)

10/00121/FUL Silverdale Golf Club, Red Bridge Lane, Silverdale Application Permitted Renewal of temporary consent for a storage container for a further two years for Silverdale Golf Club (Silverdale Ward)

10/00125/ADV 40 Penny Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Retrospective Application Refused application to retain fascia and projecting sign for The Money Shop (Dukes Ward)

10/00122/FUL 1 St Michaels Crescent, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Application Withdrawn Demolition of existing garage and erection of a side workshop/utility extension with bedroom en-suite above for Mr Graham Richardson (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00128/CU 2 And 3 Torrisholme Court, Lancaster Road, Application Permitted Morecambe Change of use and extension of properties to form restaurant (Class A3) for Mr I Bray (Torrisholme Ward)

10/00127/FUL 24 Redruth Drive, Carnforth, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted first floor bedroom extension over garage for Mr & Mrs D Mills ( Ward)

10/00135/FUL 75 Coulston Road, Lancaster, LA1 3JF Erection of a Application Permitted single storey extension to the rear and porch to the front for Mr & Mrs Macdonald (John O'Gaunt Ward)

10/00137/FUL 1 Belle Vue Terrace, Lancaster, Lancs Erection of single Application Permitted storey extension to rear for Mr J Edmunds (Scotforth West Ward)

10/00142/CU 24 Hala Grove, Lancaster, Lancashire Change of use Application Permitted from class C2 (Childrens Home) to class C3 (Dwelling House) for Lancashire County Council (Scotforth East Ward)

10/00144/FUL Gibsons Farm, Bay Horse Road, Quernmore Erection of Application Permitted a roof over existing silage clamp for Mr J Pye (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00148/FUL 20 Rose Grove, Galgate, Lancaster Erection of a single Application Permitted storey extension to the rear for Mr Peter Smethurst (Ellel Ward)

10/00165/FUL 23 Peel Crescent, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted Page 58 single storey rear extension for Mr J Worden (Castle Ward)

10/00162/FUL Bridge End Cottage, Main Street, Wray Erection of a two Application Permitted storey extension and lean-to to the rear for Mr K Cheshire (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00163/LB Bridge End Cottage, Main Street, Wray Listed building Application Permitted application for the erection of a two storey extension and lean-to extension to the rear for Mr K Cheshire (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00168/FUL 79 Scale Hall Lane, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted two storey extension to side with single storey rear extension for Mr & Mrs S. Gordon (Skerton West Ward)

10/00175/FUL Whitecroft, Proctor Moss Road, Ellel Erection of a first Application Permitted floor extension above existing single storey extension including balcony and external staircase and conservatory extension to the south east elevation for Mrs P Lawrenson (Ellel Ward)

10/00178/FUL 49 Altham Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted single storey extension to the rear for Mr And Mrs Watson (Westgate Ward)

10/00176/FUL 35 Hawthorn Road, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Erection Application Withdrawn of a garage, kitchen and lounge extension for Mr Tony Bleasdale (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00180/FUL 1 Tan Hill Drive, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of sun Application Permitted lounge extension to the rear for Mr & Mrs K Shepherd (Skerton East Ward)

10/00181/FUL Storrs Barn, Silverdale Road, Yealand Redmayne Application Permitted Erection of a single storey side extension providing sunroom/occasional guest bedroom for Ms C D Rushwaldy (Silverdale Ward)

10/00182/FUL 16 Artlebeck Road, Caton, Lancaster Erection of a Application Permitted ground floor extension to the rear for Mr And Mrs R Royle (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00186/FUL 6 Acorn Meadow, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Erection Application Permitted of a first floor extension over existing garage for Mr & Mrs P. Nicholson (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00189/NMA 16 Park Avenue, Lancaster, Lancashire Non-material Application Permitted amendment to approved application 09/00657/FUL to change style of windows and door to the porch for Mr A Cooper (John O'Gaunt Ward)

10/00188/FUL Father's House, Owen Road, Lancaster Erection of Application Permitted extensions to the front and side and internal alterations for Elim Trust Corporation (Skerton East Ward)

10/00199/FUL 94 Lancaster Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of Application Permitted a 2 storey side extension set on stone faced piers and incorporating a dormer type window to the rear for Mr R Hannam (Poulton Ward)

10/00191/FUL 38 Altham Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of an Application Permitted extension to the rear for Mr N. Moss (Westgate Ward)

Page 59 10/00204/FUL Skerton Hotel, 2 Owen Road, Lancaster Replacement of Application Permitted windows with uPVC and timber external doors for Mr R Whitehead (Skerton East Ward)

10/00206/FUL 10 Rothesay Crescent, Heysham, Morecambe Erection Application Permitted of a garage for Mr H Norris (Overton Ward)

10/00201/CU 77 - 83 Queen Street, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Conversion of ground floor shop into 2 units and internal alterations to flat at No.77 and conversion of No.83 to 2 self contained units for Mr M. Rad (Poulton Ward)

10/00202/FUL Sunny Lea, Burton Road, Warton Erection of an Application Permitted extension to the northern elevation for Mr T Brocklebank And Ms E Lawton (Warton Ward)

10/00203/ADV 20-22 Euston Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of Application Refused an internally illuminated fascia sign and projection sign for Mr John Welsby (Poulton Ward)

10/00208/FUL Brookdale, Hala Road, Lancaster Improvements to Application Permitted existing outdoor play area including new canopy to rear, landscaping and play tunnel for Mr S Walker (Scotforth East Ward)

10/00021/DIS Pear Tree Barn, Main Road, Galgate Discharge of Request Completed condition no. 4 on approved application 09/00209/FUL for Dr Karen Slade (Ellel Ward)

10/00211/FUL 14 Hest Bank Lane, Hest Bank, Lancaster Erection of a Application Permitted new porch and extension of existing single garage to form double garage with accommodation over for Mr And Mrs Collins (Slyne With Hest Ward)

10/00213/ADV Greaves Park, Bowerham Road, Lancaster Erection of Application Permitted various signage for Mr Phil Strong (Bulk Ward)

10/00214/LB Greaves Park, Bowerham Road, Lancaster Listed Application Permitted building consent for the removal of old signage and replace with new for Mr Phil Strong (Bulk Ward)

10/00216/FUL 3 Dalton Square, Lancaster, Lancashire Installation of Application Permitted evacuated tube solar thermal collectors to east side of the roof for Mr Martin Horner (Dukes Ward)

10/00217/LB 3 Dalton Square, Lancaster, Lancashire Listed Building Application Permitted Consent for installation of evacuated tube solar thermal collectors to East side of the roof. for Mr Martin Horner (Dukes Ward)

10/00218/FUL Holme Head, Melling Road, Hornby Erection of a Application Permitted agricultural building for dairy, milking and collecting yard for Mr E Towers (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/00225/FUL 23 Bailey Lane, Heysham, Morecambe Replacement of Application Permitted front and rear doors for Mrs J Lovett (Heysham South Ward)

10/00220/FUL 18C Lodges Grove, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of Application Permitted a first floor extension to the rear for Mr & Mrs A Mansell (Bare Ward)

10/00227/ELDC 26 Hanging Green Lane, Hest Bank, Lancaster Application Permitted Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Page 60 2nd access for Mrs C Turver (Slyne With Hest Ward)

10/00226/FUL 4 The Hawthorns, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of first Application Refused floor extension over existing garage for Mr & Mrs S. Fisher (Scotforth East Ward)

10/00232/FUL 8 St Michaels Lane, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Erection Application Refused of an extension to the side and rear for Miss M B J Modley (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00233/FUL Burton House, Aughton Brow, Aughton Demolition of Application Permitted existing single storey extension on South West elevation and replace with new larger single storey extension and erection of a two storey extension on North East elevation for Mr T Keeler (Halton With Aughton Ward)

10/00234/CU The Borough, 3 Dalton Square, Lancaster Change of Application Permitted use to proposed seating area on pavement adjacent to the entrance for Mr Martin Horner (Dukes Ward)

10/00236/FUL 2 Sulby Drive, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of hipped Application Refused roof on existing garage for Mr D Postlethwaite (Scotforth West Ward)

10/00237/FUL 18 Woodlands Road, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of Application Permitted a two storey extension to the front incorporating a porch and bedroom for Mr N Thomas (Skerton East Ward)

10/00240/FUL Nutting Lee, 39 Emesgate Lane, Silverdale Erection of Application Permitted an entrance porch for Mr I Fisher (Silverdale Ward)

10/00245/FUL 6 Ashford Close, Lancaster, Lancashire Demolition of Application Permitted existing single storey extension and replace with new 2 storey extension to the side for Mr A Lee (Scotforth West Ward)

10/00246/FUL 20 - 22 Euston Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Replacement of existing shopfronts for Conlon And Sons (Opticians) Ltd (Poulton Ward)

10/00249/FUL 3 Wilson Grove, Heysham, Morecambe Demolition of Application Withdrawn existing bungalow and erection of two storey apartment block for Mr D Cunningham (Heysham South Ward)

10/00256/LB 152 Main Street, Warton, Carnforth Listed building Application Permitted application for the installation of solar thermal collectors for Mr And Mrs Loxam (Warton Ward)

10/00250/CPA Carnforth North Road Cp School, North Road, Carnforth Application Permitted Proposed car park at rear of school to provide 11 new car parking spaces for Lancashire County Council (Carnforth Ward)

10/00254/FUL 1 Proctor Moss Road, Abbeystead, Lancaster Erection Application Permitted of a two storey side extension and porch to front elevation for Mr & Mrs D Pye (Ellel Ward)

10/00263/FUL 8 Bankhouse Lane, Silverdale, Carnforth Erection of Application Permitted two storey extension to side and single storey extension to rear for Mr And Mrs Clarkson (Silverdale Ward)

10/00272/FUL 3 Artlebeck Road, Caton, Lancaster Construction of new Application Permitted pitched roof over existing flat roof extension to the rear for Mrs Z Longhorn (Lower Lune Valley Ward) Page 61

10/00261/FUL Mill View Farm, Mill Lane, Bolton Le Sands Erection of Application Permitted two stables and tack room for private use for Mr & Mrs Keith and Emma Woods (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00264/FUL Enderley, Stanmore Drive, Lancaster Erection of an Application Permitted extension over existing garage to form an additional bedroom and a remodelled bathroom. for Professor Stephen Taylor (Scotforth West Ward)

10/00267/FUL Field 1563, Wyresdale Road, Quernmore Retrospective Application Permitted application for the retention of a pond for drainage of agricultural land and provision of fresh drinking water for livestock for Mr A Gardner (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00275/FUL 14 Levens Way, Silverdale, Carnforth Demolition of an Application Withdrawn existing attached garage and construction of two storey and single storey extensions for Mr R BAILEY (Silverdale Ward)

10/00277/FUL Caravan Site Detron Gate Farm, Dertern Lane, Bolton Application Permitted Le Sands Alterations to existing building to provide site reception, site managers domestic accommodation and facilities for staff working outdoors for Mr M Holgate (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00278/ADV Crossroads Garage, Kirkby Lonsdale Road, Arkholme Application Refused Retention of 2 internally illuminated free standing display units for Mr Matt Swindles (Kellet Ward)

10/00280/FUL Ibis Barn, 4 Braides Farm, Sandside Erection of single Application Permitted storey garden room extension to the rear for Mr David Tarbun (Ellel Ward)

10/00281/AD Moss House Farm, Gulf Lane, Cockerham Prior Prior Approval Not notification for erection of a timer clad agricultural Required building to replace existing for GAIL CROOK (Ellel Ward)

10/00284/FUL 19 Dundee Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted two storey extension to the rear for Mr J Moss (John O'Gaunt Ward)

10/00285/NMA 6 Oaklands Court, Lancaster, Lancashire Non-material Application Permitted amendment to application 08/00627/FUL to install window to east elevation and two velux rooflights for Mr And Mrs Appleyard (Castle Ward)

10/00282/FUL 60 Canterbury Avenue, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection Application Permitted of a two storey extension to side for Mr & Mrs P. Butler (John O'Gaunt Ward)

10/00288/CU 125 Euston Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Change of Application Permitted use of ground floor and basement to hot and cold food takeaway for Mr M Jordan (Poulton Ward)

10/00304/FUL 2 Shefferlands Cottages, Foundry Lane, Halton Erection Permitted Development of a single storey gable extension and porch to front elevation for C Lineham And D Powell (Halton With Aughton Ward)

10/00303/FUL Ward Cottage, Green Lane, Ellel Erection of a two Application Permitted storey extension and conservatory for Mr B Swindlehurst (Ellel Ward) Page 62

10/00305/FUL 16 Goodwood Avenue, Slyne, Lancaster Proposed Application Permitted extension and alterations to the existing house for Mr & Mrs R. Wood (Slyne With Hest Ward)

10/00310/FUL 3 Buckingham Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection Application Permitted of a single storey extension to the rear and granny flat to the side for Mr T Howard (Harbour Ward)

10/00313/FUL Oak Bank, Mewith Lane, Tatham Erection of an Application Permitted extension to provide additional agricultural storage building for Mr And Mrs Lawson (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00314/AD Oak Bank, Mewith Lane, Tatham Erection of a silo Prior Approval Not storage clamp for Mr And Mrs Lawson (Lower Lune Required Valley Ward)

10/00315/FUL 13 Rothesay Road, Heysham, Morecambe creation of Application Permitted vehicular crossing for Mrs P Clark (Overton Ward)

10/00359/CPA Community Centre, Barton Road, Lancaster Temporary No Objections siting of a mobile library van for Lancashire County Council (Scotforth East Ward)

10/00360/CPA Poulton Le Sands C E Primary School, Church Street, No Objections Morecambe Erection of a free standing timber canopy for Lancashire County Council (Poulton Ward)

10/00332/AD Agricultural Building Field 1563, Wyresdale Road, Prior Approval Not Quernmore Prior notification for an agricultural storage Required building for Mr Anthony Gardner (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00335/AD Bains Meadow, Mount Pleasant Lane, Bolton Le Sands Prior Approval Is Agricultural determination for erection of an agricultural Required building for Mr G Little (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00339/FUL 8 Scott Grove, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of Permitted Development kitchen and study extension for Mr & Mrs S Care (Harbour Ward)

10/00354/FUL Bay Riding School, Borrans Lane, Middleton Application Withdrawn Retrospective application for the retention of a caravan for Mrs W Hepworth (Overton Ward)

10/00358/CPA 25 Emesgate Lane, Silverdale, Carnforth Library No Objections refurbishment with new canopy and external store for Lancashire County Council (Silverdale Ward)

10/00374/FUL 74 Ullswater Road, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of a Permitted Development single storey extension to the rear for Mr Stephen Clarke ( Ward)

10/00407/AD Lodge Farm, Lodge Lane, Melling Erection of a slurry Prior Approval Not store for Mr M Parker (Upper Lune Valley Ward) Required

10/00446/NMA Chancellors Wharf, Aldcliffe Road, Lancaster Non Application Permitted Material Amendment to application no. 09/00831/FUL to amend the bike shelter sizes for Lancaster University (Dukes Ward)

Page 63 10/00442/CPA Moorside Primary School, Bowerham Road, Lancaster No Objections Creation of a hard surface play area with low level fencing for Lancashire County Council (Scotforth East Ward)