Committee: PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS REGULATORY COMMITTEE

Date: MONDAY, 27TH JULY 2009

Venue: LANCASTER TOWN HALL

Time: 10.30 A.M.

A G E N D A

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes of the Meeting held on 29th June 2009 (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 09/00505/CU Oxcliffe New Farm (including The Heysham (Pages 1 - 5) Pastures), Oxcliffe Road, Heaton- South with-Oxcliffe Ward

Change of use of land to create 5 park home (caravan) pitches including amenity area and access road and regularisation of 4 existing touring caravan pitches to 4 residential park home (caravan) pitches for Hanley Caravans Ltd

6 A6 09/00155/FUL Fanny House Farm, Oxcliffe Road, Heysham (Pages 6 - Heaton-with-Oxcliffe South 13) Ward

Erection of 2 wind turbines and associated works, including switch room, cable routing and trenches, site access and tracks, including new vehicular access from A683, hard standing area and contractors compound for British Telecom Plc

7 A7 09/00577/FUL Silver Rowan, Chapel Lane, Ellel Ellel Ward (Pages 14 - 15)

Erection of a side extension to existing bungalow for Mr Andrew Drummond

8 A8 09/00506/VCN BP Filling Station, Scotforth (Pages 16 - Scotforth Road, Lancaster East Ward 19)

Variation of condition 2 on application 87/00325 to permit longer opening hours of filling station for Mr Inayat Munshi

9 A9 09/00507/VCN BP Filling Station, Scotforth (Pages 20 - Scotforth Road, Lancaster East Ward 23)

Application for variation of conditions 4 and 5 regarding opening hours and hours of deliveries/collections on application 03/01157/FUL for Mr Inayat Munshi

10 A10 09/00627/CU 14 Gage Street, Lancaster Duke's (Pages 24 - Ward 25)

Change of use from retail shop (A1) to lettings office (A2) for Miss Charlotte Horn

11 A11 09/00536/FUL 90 Broadway, Morecambe Torrisholm (Pages 26 - e Ward 27)

Proposed single storey rear extension to form utility room and study for Mr G. Knight

12 A12 09/00551/FUL 4 St Pauls Drive, Lancaster Scotforth (Pages 28 - West Ward 31)

Erection of 2 semi-detached houses on land adjacent to 4 St Pauls Drive for Mr and Mrs Clark

13 A13 09/00516/ADV Storey Institute, Meeting House Castle (Pages 32 - Lane, Lancaster Ward 34)

Erection of 2 fascia signs for Lancaster City Council

14 A14 09/00517/LB Storey Institute, Meeting House Castle (Pages 35 - Lane, Lancaster Ward 38)

Listed building application for the erection of 2 external fascia signs, internal signage and window graphics for Lancaster City Council

15 A15 09/00544/LB Palatine Hall, Dalton Square, Duke's (Pages 39 - Lancaster Ward 41)

Listed building application for the installation of CCTV cameras to the front and rear, and installation of a door entry system to the front entrance door for Lancaster City Council

Category D Application

Proposals for development by a District Council

16 A16 09/00533/DPA 14 Prospect Grove, Morecambe Poulton (Pages 42 - Ward; 43)

Change of use from private dwelling to offices incorporating guest accommodation for Lancaster City Council

Category C Applications

Applications which involve County Matters and fall to be determined by the County Council and proposals for development by the County Council.

17 A17 09/00599/CCC Heysham High School, Limes Heysham (Pages 44 - Avenue, Heysham North Ward 46)

Erection of new sports hall for Lancashire County Council

18 A18 09/00553/CCC Nightingale Hall, Quernmore Bulk Ward; (Pages 47 - Road, Lancaster 49)

Application for temporary permission for timber recycling for biomass energy for John Dainty

19 Delegated Planning Decisions (Pages 50 - 56)

ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

(i) Membership

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

(ii) Substitute Membership

Councillors June Ashworth, Abbott Bryning, John Gilbert, Tony Johnson, Karen Leytham, Ian McCulloch, Geoff Marsland, Keith Sowden, Malcolm Thomas and Paul Woodruff

(iii) Queries regarding this Agenda

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

(iv) Changes to Membership, substitutions or apologies

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

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

Published on Wednesday, 15th July 2009 Page 1 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 5

A5 27 July 2009 09/00505/CU

Application Site Proposal

Oxcliffe New Farm (including The Pastures), Change of use to create 5 park home (caravan) Oxcliffe Road, Heaton-with-Oxcliffe, Morecambe pitches including amenity areas and access road and regularisation of 4 existing touring caravan pitches to 4 residential park home (caravan) pitches

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Hanley Caravans Ltd John Lambe Associates

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

21 July 2009 Awaiting consultation replies.

Case Officer Peter Rivet

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This site is on the south side of Oxcliffe Road, a short distance to the east of the bridge over the Morecambe to Heysham railway line. It is outside the built up area of Morecambe, and is shown as open countryside on the Lancaster District Local Plan Proposals Map.

1.2 In its present form, it is in three parts. The first is the original Oxcliffe New Farm caravan site, which is authorised to accommodate 11 caravans but currently contains 15 (including a pitch for a touring van which was vacant at the time of the last inspection). Beyond it is a later extension known as The Pastures, containing 8 caravans. This is identical in form to the main site except that the access road does not have a tarmacadam surface.

1.3 It will therefore be seen that while the site has planning permission for 19 caravans, it currently contains plots for 23. Despite this the site as a whole is generally tidy and well maintained. There is a small children's playground adjoining the eastern site boundary. The access to the site, off Oxcliffe Road, is controlled by a lifting barrier.

1.4 To the south of the site is an open field, enclosed on three sides by conifer planting. While most of it is open grassland, a plot at the north west corner is occupied by a single static caravan. Also, along the side of the access track adjoining the eastern boundary is scattered debris, some of which appears to come from old caravans which have been scrapped.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application covers two separate proposals. One is a regularisation of the existing situation, in that the site currently accommodates more caravans than it is supposed to. The other is the development of the area of amenity space at the southern end of the site with four chalets.

2.2 In a covering letter, the applicant's agent puts forward his case for the development. It is argued that the discrepancy over the number of caravans has existed for a number of years and originates from the early days of the site, when space was set aside for additional touring vans. Information is Page 2 provided on the personal circumstances of some of the site's residents, who are of limited means.

2.3 He also argues that the discrepancy in the number of pitches is a long standing one, and has existed for more than ten years. He has not however provided evidence to support this.

2.4 So far as the open land at the end of the site is concerned, it is pointed out that it has long been part of the same landholding (it was not purchased separately) and is enclosed on three sides by dense conifer planting. It is argued that it has been used in recent years for the storage of building materials and garden refuse, and therefore has an unsightly appearance; the proposed use of the site by chalets (with a small area set aside for amenity purposes) will, it is suggested, improve the overall appearance of the area.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The history of this site is complex. It was originally approved as a gypsy site. An extension to it (the area now known as The Pastures) was approved in 2005. However, once the site had become established the applicant let the caravans on it to people who had no gypsy or traveller connection.

3.2 In 2009, following the threat of enforcement action, two separate, but effectively identical applications were submitted for the retention of the site as a caravan site for general occupation, rather than for gypsies and travellers. One was submitted by the site owner; the other came from the occupiers of the caravans on the site, most if not all of whom had been unaware of the gypsy status of the site when they bought caravans on it. Both were approved. They did not however address the problem that the site contained more caravans than were authorised either by the various planning permissions, or by the relevant site licence.

3.3 So far as the land at the end of the site is concerned, the applicant has attempted in the past to obtain permission for the storage of caravans, but this was refused, partly because it was unrelated to the operation of the existing caravan site and would have generated additional traffic on the access road through it.

Application Number Proposal Decision 1/85/45 Change of use of land to site for 10 residential caravans Refused for gypsies T/APP/A2335/A/85/ Appeal against refusal of consent for 1/85/45 Allowed 030246/P5 97/00752/CU Renewal of temporary permission for ten gypsy caravans, Approved creation of one additional pitch and variation of condition to enure for benefit of Mr Mahoney 98/00129/FUL Modification of condition 3 of 97/00752 to allow up to four Approved ancillary touring caravans 99/01002/FUL Renewal of temporary consent 97/00752/CU for 11 gypsy Approved caravan pitches 00/00002/REF Appeal against refusal of renewal of temporary consent Allowed 97/00752 05/00382/CU Change of use of land to form extension to existing gypsy Approved caravan site (8 pitches) and improvements to existing access 06/01047/CU Change of use of land to caravan storage/service area Refused 08/01287/RCN Removal of condition 5 on application 99/01002/FUL and Approved condition 4 on application 05/00382/CU to allow occupation by people who are not gypsies or travellers 08/01303/RCN Removal of condition 5 on application 99/01002/FUL and Approved condition 4 on application 05/00382/CU to allow occupation by people who are not gypsies or travellers

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from consultees:

Page 3 Consultees Response Heaton-with-Oxcliffe No observations received at the time this report was prepared. Parish Council Lancashire County Observations awaited. Council highways Lancashire County No comments from a strategic planning point of view; they consider that it should be Council Planning assessed in relation to the regional and local policy framework. From an ecological perspective, they draw attention to policies in the Local Plan and legislation safeguarding wildlife interests. They recommend that no construction work should take place on the site between March and July if there is any risk that it could disturb nesting birds. Environmental No objections in principle, but they point out that if consent is granted the site owner Health will need to apply for an amended licence. No contaminated land study has been provided - they would wish to see a desk study/risk assessment before any consent is granted. This has been referred to the applicant's agent and it is understood that a desktop study will be available shortly. It is noted that part of the site has been used for scrapping caravans and depositing waste, and this may involve the Environment Agency and the County Council as waste authority. Environment No objection in principle, but the site is within an area considered to be at risk from Agency flooding. Conditions should be attached to any consent requiring anchoring of the park homes, and the agreement of a suitable evacuation system in the event of flooding. In addition details will be needed of the arrangements for the disposal of foul and surface water drainage. Recommend the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems where this is practicable. The watercourse adjoining the site is designated a "main river" and no trees, shrubs, buildings, pipelines or other structures should be positioned within 8 metres of the top of the bank.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Nine letters and emails have been received from residents of the site. These support the application, on the grounds that it would resolve the status of the site and provide the residents with security and would tidy up the land at the southern end of it, which is at present an eyesore.

5.2 A separate email queries the Environment Agency's classification of the watercourse adjoining the site as a "main river" on the basis that it is a shallow beck that normally contains very little water. The writer says that during the seven years she has lived on the site she has seen no sign of flooding.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Policy SC2 of the Core Strategy states that within the period covered, 90% of new dwellings will be located within the urban areas of Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth. Policy SC3 says that the 10% of dwellings in the rural area should be focused in villages which have five basic services. Development outside these settlements will require exceptional justification.

6.2 Of the "saved" policies in the Lancaster District Local Plan, the most relevant are E4 covering development within areas identified as open countryside in the Local Plan Proposal Map, and H8 which states that new housing accommodation in the countryside, outside identified villages, will only be permitted where it is essential to the needs of agriculture, forestry or other uses in the rural area.

6.3 "Saved" policy T9 requires that all new housing which would significantly increase the demand for travel should be designed to maximise the opportunities for using public transport and should be located as close as possible to existing or proposed bus services.

6.4 Consideration also has to be given to national guidance as set out in PPS 7 (Planning Policy Statement: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

Page 4 7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The application covers two separate proposals, which raise different issues: the regularisation of the number of caravans on the main part of the site, and its extension on to what is supposed to be amenity open space at the rear. The applicant was advised to submit two separate applications, but has chosen to combine them.

7.2 So far as the number of caravans is concerned, it is evident that over the last few years the site owner has rearranged the plots to maximise its capacity. He has then sold them to the occupiers, many of whom are retired. They had no idea that some of them were unauthorised. They are understandably concerned that several of them - it is not entirely clear which - now "own" caravan plots which have no legal status. The number of representations supporting the present application for this reason is noted.

7.3 Whatever view may be taken of the applicant's past actions, the circumstances of the people living on the site invite sympathy. The spacing between the caravans is satisfactory. The original layout allowed for the storage of touring caravans (as would be expected on the gypsy site that it was supposed to be) and consequently the additional vans and the alternative layout which goes with them have been accommodated without any significant detriment to the site's residents.

7.4 The development of the land at the southern end of the site raises different issues. Although there is at present a static van on one corner of it, this area has never had consent for use as a caravan site of any kind. The bulk of it is undeveloped. Despite the debris left along the eastern boundary it offers amenity benefits to the residents of the site, as open space.

7.5 The applicant's agent argues that the proposal is consistent with planning policies for the area. He quotes policy H19 of the Lancaster District Local Plan which says that in Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth, new residential development will be permitted which meets various criteria. However, the land concerned is outside the defined urban area. Like the existing caravan site, it is within an area identified as countryside in the Local Plan. The relevant Local Plan policy for new housing is therefore not H19, but H8. No agricultural or similar justification has been put forward for additional housing in this location. Policy E4 further requires that any development in the countryside should, among other things, make satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking.

7.6 The Oxcliffe New Farm site cannot be regarded as a sustainable location. There are no community facilities in the immediate vicinity. Nor, contrary to what is suggested in the statement accompanying the application, is the site readily accessible by public transport. The nearest bus route is on the other side of the Morecambe - Heysham railway line, at the junction of Oxcliffe Road with Kingsway, and to reach it involves a walk along a busy classified road (B5273) with no footway for much of its length. The proposed southern extension to the site is particularly open to objection as it involves the part of it most remote from the site access.

7.7 As the land concerned is enclosed by dense planting, whatever takes place on it has little impact on the wider landscape, but this is true of many rural sites. It is not an appropriate test for justifying residential development in the countryside.

7.8 To grant consent for additional housing here would be incompatible with the sustainability principles set out in the Core Strategy and the Lancaster District Local Plan, as well as those set out in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 (‘Sustainable Development in the Countryside’). The latter emphasises the need for strict control over development in the open countryside and the need to take account of accessibility in all development decisions.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 Taking these factors into account, it is recommended that permission should be refused, but that the applicant should be encouraged to submit a further application regularising the status of the additional caravans within the main part of the site. If he is not prepared to do this, it is open to the residents to submit an application along these lines on their own account.

If Members agree to this course of action, it is also recommended that:

Page 5

• Enforcement action should be taken to remove the single caravan on the southern part of the site, which does not have consent for such use. This may mean that the City Council will be under an obligation to rehouse the person involved.

• An "untidy land" notice under s. 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 should be served on this part of the site to require the owner to remove the rubbish and building materials stored on part of the land, and restore it to a clean and tidy condition.

8.2 Member comment on these enforcement matters would be welcome.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Contrary to policy SC2 and SC3 of the Core Strategy - the site is in the countryside, not a sustainable location, poorly related to community facilities and not directly served by public transport. 2. Contrary to "saved" policy H8 of the Lancaster District Local Plan - the site is in the countryside, and the accommodation is not required for agriculture, forestry or other uses appropriate to the rural area. 3. Contrary to "saved" policy E4 of the Lancaster District Local Plan - development detrimental to amenities of residents of the site - loss of amenity open space. 4. Contrary to "saved" policy T9 of the Lancaster District Local Plan - proposed development on the southern part of the site would not be readily accessible by public transport.

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

1. None

Page 6 AgendaAgenda Item Item 6 Committee Date Application Number

A6 27 July 2009 09/00155/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Fanny House Farm, Oxcliffe Road, Heaton-with- Erection of two wind turbines and associated works Oxcliffe, Morecambe, Lancs including switch room, cable routing and trenches, site access and tracks, new access from A683, hard standing area and contractors' compound

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

British Telecom PLC Dalton Warner Davis LLP

12 Garlick Hill. London EC4Y 5BT

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

25 May 2009 Awaiting additional information from consultees and the applicants

Case Officer Peter Rivet

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This land is to the south east of Heysham, immediately to the north of the A683 Heysham link road. Part of it is occupied by a telecommunications tower owned by British Telecom. The immediate area is generally flat, but the southern part of Heysham occupies a ridge overlooking the site.

1.2 The land is crossed by three high voltage power lines from the Heysham Nuclear Power Stations in the direction of the White Lund and the south side of Lancaster. The site itself is not subject to any special designations, but the Heysham Moss SSSI lies between it and the Morecambe - Heysham branch railway line.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 It is proposed to erect two three bladed wind turbines on the site, and construct an access track to it off the main road. A small building is also required to accommodate the associated switchgear.

2.2 The plans as submitted indicated columns supporting the turbines would be 100m high and the three blades would be 41 metres long, so the maximum height of the structure, with one blade in a vertical position, would be 141 metres. Following discussions the applicants have agreed to reduce the height of the columns by approximately one third to 69 metres. This means that the maximum height of the structure would be 110 metres. The nearest dwellings, in Longmeadow Lane, would be approximately 500m away (part of the applicants' assessment gives this distance as 470 metres).

2.3 Each of the turbines would have a generating capacity of between 2 and 2.5MW. The wind farm is expected to have a life of 25 years.

Page 7 2.4 Supporting information states that British Telecom is a major energy user in the UK, and uses 0.7% of the total national electricity demand. The company is committed to reducing its carbon footprint and one way of doing this is to develop wind energy projects on sites within its control. This is intended to be one of a series of wind farm projects.

2.5 The application is accompanied by a lengthy Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which addresses the issues associated with the development under a series of different headings:

• Landscape • Ecology (habitats and protected species) • Ecology (ornithology) • Water and Geology • Noise • Traffic and transport • Archaeology and the historic environment

• Geology, hydrogeology and hydrology

• Shadow flicker • Social and economic impact • Air quality.

2.6 Their consultants have also provided what can best be described as an album of viewpoints of the site to illustrate the impact of the proposals on its surroundings. Because of their size the wind turbines would be visible in the distance over a wide area, as far away as Barrow and Fleetwood; but their real impact is on the immediate area, which includes the new housing at Heysham Mossgate. Part of this is only 0.5 km from the site.

2.7 One issue which is not specifically covered in the EIA is the relationship of the turbines, particularly the western one, with the nearby high voltage power line. This matter has been raised by several of the letters received from local people and has been referred to the applicants' agents. Their response is that the separation distance required is the maximum height measured from ground level to the tip of the blade (in this case 110 metres) plus a 4 metre separation distance. As the western turbine is 151 metres from the power line, it meets the required safety standard. They argue that the risk of turbine failure is very low, as there have been only a few examples worldwide, and that with increased experience of this type of equipment the probability of this happening is reduced. It is recognised that appropriate safety procedures will have to be followed with cranes used to put the turbines in place.

3.0 Site History

3.1 British Telecom have already assessed the potential of the site for wind generation by erecting an anemometer mast, which was granted a three year temporary consent in 2008. An earlier proposal for a second communications tower on part of the site was refused consent.

Application Number Proposal Decision 02/01501/PAM Prior approval for a 15m telecommunications tower with 3 Refusal antennae, 4 dishes and an associated equipment cabin. 07/01790/FUL Erection of a 60m high anemometer mast Approval

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from consultees:

Consultees Response Heysham Object to the application. The site is close to housing and the Heysham Moss SSSI. Neighbourhood They are concerned about noise problems, loss of television signals and the safety of Council the turbines, and draw attention to the possible impact of the development on the ecology of the area. Following a public meeting organised by them, a letter has been Page 8 sent by County Councillor Jean Yates objecting to the development on these grounds. Heaton-with-Oxcliffe No observations received. Parish Council Middleton No observations received. Parish Council Lancashire County Archaeology Unit - A desktop assessment has concluded that there is medium to Council Planning high potential for prehistoric activity on the site. They agree with this assessment. A condition should therefore be attached to any consent requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological work.

Ecology Unit - Are very critical of the content of the ecological assessment provided with the application. Consider that it provides insufficient information on the impact of the development on the nearby SSSI and the Biological Heritage Site. Further material is needed to cover the possible impact on protected species: great crested newts, bats, water voles, common toads and over-wintering and breeding birds. A survey to establish whether great crested newts are present on the site is needed. If consent is granted, a programme of mitigation measures is called for. These can be secured through planning conditions and/or a section 106 agreement. Other conditions are recommended to control details of the work carried out. Suggest that construction work should be timed to begin in the spring to minimise disturbance to birds. They also have concerns about the impact of any lighting on the site. Lancashire County The applicants have had some preliminary discussions about the proposal. However Council highways initially they did not provide a detailed Transport Statement dealing with the temporary junction on the A683 while construction is under way. This has now been submitted - further observations to follow. Environmental A paper referred to by some of the objectors is described as a "scientific assessment" Health but in fact it is clearly prepared as part of a package of anti-wind farm material. Many of the comments received from objectors refer to noise levels "close to" turbines. The technology has changed considerably in recent years; the newest ones are larger and therefore slower turning. On a recent visit to Caton Moor, when the turbines there were turning at 19rpm, a significant amount of noise was audible within 200m but the level 500m away was very low and unlikely to be an issue. Environment Although the site is within Flood Zone 3 the application is supported by a Flood Risk Agency Assessment and they have no objections to the development. However, a site check should be carried out by an ecologist to determine whether water voles are present as the habitat is suitable for them. Surface water drainage should be provided using a sustainable urban drainage system. Natural England Observations still awaited. National Grid No observations received. Ministry of Defence Object to the proposal. The turbines will be 33km from their radar installation at Warton (Preston); they will be within its line of sight, and will cause unacceptable interference to it. Following trials carried out in 2005, it has been concluded that wind turbines can affect the probability of detection of aircraft flying over or in the vicinity of wind turbines. Civil Aviation No observations received at the time this report was prepared. Authority

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 In total 111 letters and emails have been received from residents of Heysham and adjoining areas in response to publicity about the application, objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

• Inappropriate location close to a large housing estate • Detrimental to the wildlife of the area (bats, ducks, geese) • Wind turbines are inefficient, as the Caton Moor ones only operate for 30% of the time • Disturbance/health impacts from shadow flicker associated with the turbines • Possible noise problems • Possible interference with TV signals • Hazard for low flying aircraft

• Distraction to drivers of vehicles on the Heysham bypass

Page 9 • Loss of outlook/view • Site has been chosen because of BT's existing involvement rather than because it is suitable for the purpose • Possible health problems • Wind turbines should be located offshore instead • Loss of property value (this is not a planning consideration)

5.2 Geraldine Smith MP has written in support of her constituents' objections, on the basis that the turbines are likely to give rise to noise problems, particularly in the Longmeadow lane and Windermere Park areas. She is also concerned about the possible impact of the proposal on the nearby Heysham Moss SSSI.

5.3 The Campaign to Protect Rural England objects to the proposal. They say that they are not opposed to wind turbines as such, but regard this site as unsuitable because of its proximity to the SSSI and to Heysham.

5.4 The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside objects to the application. They are concerned about the hydrology of Heysham Moss, and the population of pink footed geese which frequents the area. They are concerned that insufficient commitment has been shown to necessary mitigation measures. If permission is granted, they wish to see conditions requiring that construction work should avoid the bird breeding season, that local lighting should not increase, and that the water quality if the land drainage should be monitored.

5.5 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has had meetings on the site with the applicants. They note that the area is frequented by Pink Footed Geese. They are satisfied that collision risk is not a significant issue but they believe that the birds' flight pattern is likely to be dispersed. They are concerned about the impact of the cabling and other works associated with the development on the Biological Heritage site but consider that it should be possible to mitigate their impact.

5.6 Seven representations have been received in support of the proposal, on the grounds that using wind power for electricity generation is very important both locally and nationally. One of them points out that the immediate area is already bisected by three high voltage power lines, and that the site is close to a busy road which is capable of producing much more noise than a turbine. Another argues that the possible disturbance to pink footed geese has been overstated and that the area is already well used by dog walkers, motorcyclists and farm workers on tractors.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National policy on wind farms is set out in PPS22 (Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy) which was published in 2004. Its starting point is the government's objective of generating 10% of UK electricity from renewable sources by 2010. While this target is now unlikely to be met within the intended timescale, it remains an aspiration. It requires both Regional; Spatial Strategies and local development documents to contain policies designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources.

6.2 The Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West refers to the Action Plan which forms part of the Regional Economic strategy. This "aims to stimulate and measure the progress of the region towards a low carbon economy, preparing it for the challenges of a changing climate and future energy demands. Whilst protecting and enhancing our quality of life and rich environment".

6.3 Policy ER7 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will promote renewable energy in the District by, among other things, "promoting South Heysham as a key focus for renewable energy generation including wind and biomass technology and promoting areas with renewable energy potential".

6.4 Of the "saved" policies in the Lancaster District Local Plan, E4 is relevant as it deals with development within areas identified as Countryside. It states that development will only be permitted where it is in scale and in keeping with the character and natural beauty of the landscape, appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscaping; would not result in a significant adverse effect on nature conservation or geological interests; and makes appropriate arrangements for access. Policy E22, a "partly superseded" policy, indicates that proposals for wind farms will be assessed against their impact on the character of the landscape, nature conservation interests, and nearby dwellings including the possible effect of Page 10 electromagnetic disturbance. Part of the site is within a County Council Biological Heritage Site so policy E17 is also relevant. This states that development likely to damage or destroy such a site will not be permitted, unless the need for the development demonstrably outweighs the need to protect the site. As the site is close to the Heysham Moss SSSI account has also to be taken of its impact on it; this is covered by policy E16.

6.5 The Lancaster Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-2011 states in its Environment section that one of its objectives (Priority 2) is to "Protect and improve air, water and land quality and use resources sustainably with due regard to the interests of the wider community and the environment".

6.6 In 2005 Lancashire County Council commissioned a report from Lovejoy Associates, on Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Developments in Lancashire. This identifies the application site as coming within an area of low sensitivity. For the purposes of determining the application, the report's conclusions do not have any standing as statutory policies, but they are still a material consideration.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 This is, by any standards, a major proposal. Only two turbines are proposed as part of the development, and the applicants' landholding does not offer scope for more. However one enquiry has already been received about the provision of more, by another developer, on land to the south of the A683 road. Whatever decision is reached here could be regarded as setting a precedent for further wind energy development in the area.

7.2 As noted above the City Council has a commitment to the promotion of renewable energy and the southern end of Heysham is specifically identified as a suitable area for this. Because of the existing network of high voltage power lines, the site is exceptionally well sited for a connection to the National Grid. The 4 - 5 MW generating potential of the proposal has to be seen in context; it is very small compared with that of the nearby nuclear power stations (Heysham 1 can produce 1150 MW, and Heysham 2 1250 MW). Nonetheless it is capable of making a useful contribution to national and local energy needs from renewable sources.

7.3 The key issues to be addressed in determining the application are:

• The impact of the development on the landscape, • Possible noise problems • The possible impact of "shadow flicker" • The effect of the proposal on the ecology and wildlife of the area • The benefits to the community in terms of meeting energy demands • The interests of the Ministry of Defence and the Civil Aviation Authority

7.4 THE IMPACT ON THE LANDSCAPE

The surrounding does not have any features that merit special protection. There is an argument that the public interest is served better by siting an installation of this kind here, close to existing electricity generating infrastructure, rather than where it would impact on the high quality landscape of the Lune Valley. Nonetheless all landscape is important to the people who live there. The impact of the present proposal on views from the houses to the west of the site, at Heysham Mossgate, would be considerable. Its scale is such that no landscaping scheme would have any effect. The concerns expressed by people living in this area come as no surprise.

The size of turbines proposed is very large by the standards of the industry. As previously indicated the columns would have a height of 69m and the rotor blades would be 41m long, giving a maximum height of 110m metres. By way of comparison, the comparable figures for the second generation turbines on Caton Moor are 55m and 35m, giving a maximum height of 90m. To give some indication of what this represents, Blackpool Tower is 158m high.

According to the measurements given in part of the applicants' assessment, There are few examples in the UK of wind farms as close as 500m from housing areas, though a similar installation has been approved on the edge of Sheerness in Kent. Closer to Heysham, there is a comparable group of three large size turbines at Holmside, near Stanley in Co. Durham. The nearest housing to this is at South Stanley, a 1920s housing estate on a south facing slope facing towards one of the turbines. Page 11

The provision of two large wind turbines on this site may be seen as a statement of the City Council's commitment to renewable energy as well as British Telecom's but this has to be balanced against the visual impact of the proposal on the surrounding area, not only that of the residential area closest to the site.

7.5 POSSIBLE NOISE PROBLEMS

The applicants' supporting statement claims that nose levels from the turbines, when measured from the nearest houses, are unlikely to be an issue. Because of its closeness to houses the noise issue is of greater significance than it is with an isolated rural site such as Caton Moor, but it must be remembered that background noise levels in an urban area - even a relatively quiet one - will be significantly higher than in open countryside.

Evidence from other wind farms indicates that complaints usually follow a malfunction of some kind. A condition is therefore desirable to ensure that the turbines are equipped with a cut-off mechanism to ensure that they will cease to turn if they are not working properly. The applicants are willing to agree to this.

7.6 THE POSSIBLE IMPACT OF SHADOW FLICKER

Shadow flicker is a phenomenon experienced from the impact of sunlight on the rotating blades of a turbine. It can be experienced by people living nearby if a wind turbine is close enough to and of a specific orientation with, a nearby house. It will not occur where there is vegetation or some other obstruction between the turbines and the house; if windows facing a turbine are fitted with blinds or shutters; or if the sun is not shining brightly enough to cause shadows from a turbine. It can also be a problem for the drivers of vehicles along nearby roads. Shadow flicker is not just irritating. For a small number of people, it can trigger epileptic attacks.

The relationship of the two turbines to the housing to the north west of the site gives rise to concerns about the phenomenon. Clearly at certain times of the year, the morning sun will be low in the sky and will be visible behind them, even if allowance is made for the shielding effect of the hills to the east of Lancaster.

The assessment concludes that the potential for shadow flicker from this development is low, and that in most cases intervening buildings and vegetation will effectively limit its impact.

The information on this issue provided with the application is not as comprehensive as might be expected on this issue. Despite this, shadow flicker is associated with the sun being in a particular position in relation to the turbines, so it is possible to predict accurately on which days and at which times it will occur. The normal solution is to impose a condition requiring that the turbines are switched off during these times.

7.7 THE IMPACT ON THE ECOLOGY AND WILDLIFE OF THE AREA

The development will not directly affect the Heysham Mossgate SSSI but it will, quite clearly, impact on part of the Biological Heritage Site. The turbines will affect the paths of migrating birds, but not to the extent that alternative routes will not be available for them.

There is at present some uncertainty as to the impact of the development, if any, on bats. British Telecom have indicated that they are researching this issue further. However the additional survey information is not yet available.

Issues with the impact of the development at ground level can be addressed by appropriate mitigation measures. The applicants are clearly willing to undertake these. At present, an appropriate site for such measures has not been identified but there is no reason to believe that one cannot be identified; and in these circumstances the issue can be addressed by means of an appropriately worded condition.

The County Council's Ecology Unit have suggested that construction work should be timed to start in the spring so as to minimise the disturbance to wildlife on the site. This can be covered by a suitably worded condition. Page 12

So far as lighting is concerned, it would be very unusual to find this on a wind farm site as in the normal course of events there would be no reason for maintenance staff to visit after dark. The requirement suggested by the Environmental Health Service that a mechanism should be installed to ensure that the rotors cease to operate in the event of a mechanical failure should be sufficient to make it unnecessary.

7.8 BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF MEETING ENERGY DEMANDS

Objectors to wind farms argue that their contribution to electricity generating capacity is small; that they contribute nothing when there is no wind; that they are expensive and depend on subsidy to be viable; and they have a damaging effect on the landscape.

The first two of these assertions are undoubtedly true. So far as cost is concerned, it is true that wind energy benefits from a subsidy but it has the attraction that the infrastructure is relatively quick and simple to install. The last of these arguments involves a value judgement, and has to be balanced against the quality of the landscape affected.

Despite this wind energy can make a significant contribution to the national need for renewable energy, which as existing power stations reach the end of their working life is increasingly urgent. It is relatively quick and easy to install and makes use of a major energy resource, without increasing CO2 emissions, and a wind turbine can be removed relatively easily when it is no longer needed.

7.9 THE INTERESTS OF THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND THE CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY

The Ministry of Defence are not a statutory consultee for this kind of application but it is required of the applicants that they should submit the proposal to them for clearance. The Ministry requires precise heights of the installation in order to comment and they make the point that any changes need to be notified to them. The consultation sent by the City Council refers to the reduced height of the columns, as negotiated with the City Council's Planning Service

The applicants have not, in this case, been able to obtain the necessary clearance. It is evident from the letter received from Defence Estates that they have serious concerns about the impact of the proposal on the radar system associated with the British Aerospace site at Warton. This site is used for building and testing aircraft so its safe and effective operation is of critical importance.

7.10 OTHER MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED

Other issues raised by objectors include television interference and hazards to low flying aircraft. It is considered that these have been adequately addressed in the applicants' initial submission.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 All forms of energy generation have an impact on the landscape. Coal, which until recently provided the vast majority of the UK's electricity, has arguably the greatest impact of all. One important feature of wind energy is that its effects are short term ones. When a wind turbine reaches the end of its life, it can easily be taken away. All that will be left is a concrete base which can if need be also be removed, leaving nothing behind. The same cannot be said of the nearby nuclear power stations, which sterilise the land occupied by them for the foreseeable future.

8.2 However, it is clear from the comments received from the Ministry of Defence that they do not consider that the wind turbines as proposed are compatible with the needs of their radar system. At the same time there are some outstanding ecological issues which need to be addressed.

8.3 The applicants have asked for more time in order to overcome this problem, but as things stand there is no indication that an accommodation can be reached. In the circumstances the proposal cannot be recommended for approval.

Page 13 Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Contrary to national interest in that wind turbines in position shown would interfere with radar tracking of aircraft from Warton. 2. Insufficient information to show that wildlife interests of site will be safeguarded.

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

1. None.

Page 14 AgendaAgenda Item Item 7 Committee Date Application Number

A7 27 July 2009 09/00577/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Silver Rowan Erection of a side extension to existing bungalow

Chapel Lane

Ellel

Lancaster

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr Andrew Drummond

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

10 August 2009 N/A

Case Officer Mr Martin Culbert

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approve

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This site is a semi-detached bungalow located on the west side of Chapel Lane, Ellel, midway between Galgate and the University campus. To the rear (west) lie open fields through to the A6, to the front, on the opposite of Chapel Lane lies a cemetery, while to the south lies a large side garden to The Old School House and to the north lies the similar other half of the pair of bungalows. The site is bounded by low fences on all sides.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 This proposal is a full application for the erection of a small single storey extension to the southern side/gable of the bungalow to replace an existing covered patio area and the extension of the existing roof to cover both this extension and the rear of an earlier extension to form a new gable end to the bungalow. The proposed extension would provide a separate dining area and utility room. The materials would be to match these of the existing bungalow. The proposal would normally have been dealt with under the delegation scheme but has been referred to Committee as the applicant works in the Planning Service.

3.0 Site History

3.1 There has only been one previous application to this site:

Application Number Proposal Decision 01/89/00598 Extension to form utility and lobby Approved

Page 15 4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Parish Council No response received

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No representations received.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Saved Policy E4 (Development in the countryside area).

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 This proposal is a small, low key development which will be completely hidden behind the prevision extension. The design and materials are acceptable and will rationalise and unify the appearance of the bungalow. The proposed extension will be hidden from the adjacent neighbour behind their existing garage and a number of semi mature trees and shrubs along the side boundary. The side boundary adjacent to the extension is marked by a fence of medium light. The proposed dining and W.C room windows facing across this fence should be obscure glazed to safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring occupier.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 This is a well thought out proposal of minor proportions, well hidden behind existing buildings and screen planting. Subject to obscure glazing in the front windows this application can be supported.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard Full Permission 2. Development in accordance with approved plans. 3. Obscured glazing to new windows

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

1. None.

Page 16 AgendaAgenda Item Item 8 Committee Date Application Number

A8 27 July 2009 09/00506/VCN

Application Site Proposal

BP Filling Station Variation of condition 2 on application 87/00325 to permit longer opening hours of filling station Scotforth Road

Lancaster

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr Inayat Munshi Ms Susan Hughes

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

21 July 2009

Case Officer Mr Martin Culbert

Departure

Summary of Recommendation Approve, 1 year temporary permission

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The site is in the existing service station which fronts onto the eastern side of Scotforth Road. The Bowling Green Public House and Booth Supermarket lie to the south to the site but otherwise it is almost completely surrounded by residential development. The main service station building, which also contains a shop and an automated teller machine, is situated alongside the southern boundary of the site. Jet wash, vacuum and air facilities are set back form the road in the centre of the site beyond the fuel pump forecourt area. A car wash building is situated adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, next to the nearest dwelling.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 This proposal is a full application to modify the opening hours of the service station to 06:00 to 23:00 Monday to Sunday for a trial period of 12 months. The currently approved opening hours of the service station are restricted by condition 2 of permission 87/0325 to 07:00 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 08:00 22:00 on Sunday.

The hours of use of the jet wash are currently restricted by a different condition to 08:00 to 18:00 and this is to remain.

The hours of use of the car wash are presently unrestricted within the present opening hours of the site. These would remain unchanged.

Members should note that there is a related application on the agenda, Application no. 09/00507/VCN. This also seeks to amend the hours of opening at the site to accord with the current submission. This is because the hours of opening were reconfirmed in a later application in 2003 which covered other developments at the site and for administrative reasons it is necessary to ensure that any new consents are consistent with all previous decisions. While it is necessary for Members to be aware of this background the two applications are considered separately. Page 17

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has a very long and complex history of which very little is of direct relevance to the consideration of this application.

Planning permission was originally granted for the development of the site as a petrol filling station in 1979 under application 79/1024. This restricted opening hours to 07:30 to 22:00 Monday to Sunday.

In 1987 permission was granted to extend the opening hours to 07:00 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 08:00 to 22:00 on Sunday.

In 1993 an application 93/00711, to extend opening to 24 hours was refused on the grounds that it would cause unacceptable disturbance and loss of amenity to the residents of nearby dwellings.

In 2003 an application 03/01157/FUL for a jet wash facility was approved subject restricting its hours of use the 08:00 18:00 Monday to Sunday.

In 2006 an application 06/00699/FUL, to extend opening to 24 hours was refused for the same reasons as the previous similar application.

In 2007 a subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Inspector for the following reason:-

“I conclude on balance that continuing to open the service station on a 24 hour basis as proposed would be likely to unacceptable harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular reference to noise and disturbance late at night and in the early hours of the morning, contrary to the LP Policy EC6 and the aims of PPG24 and PPG4. Furthermore, I conclude that condition no 2 is reasonable and necessary as a means of safeguarding the living conditions of those residents and I am also satisfied that it meets the other tests of conditions set out in Circular 11/95”.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Chief Environmental No objection to 12 months temporary permission Health Officer County Highways No objection

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Seven letters have been received from residents in the local area objecting to the proposal on the grounds of increased noise and disturbance from cars, deliveries, use of the air machine. HGV parking on the highway while drivers use the shop at unsocial hours is a nuisance and it is suggested that there is no need for 6 am opening as there is little traffic at that time.

General noise and disturbance has increased dramatically in recent times following the closure of Toll Bar filling station and the introduction of cycle lanes on the A6 which have reduced the carriageway withed to one land, causing frequent queues past the filling station entrances and difficulties for people entering and leaving the site.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 The preamble to Policy EC15 of the Lancaster District Local Plan (Business and Industrial Development Outside Employment Areas), states that - “Whilst most employment development will take place on identified sites, some services uses can satisfactorily be located in residential areas. Some business located outside employment areas may also need to expand and appropriate employment development outside employment areas will be allowed where compatible with other policies of the Local Plan. Page 18

However it also goes on to advise that- “Where proposal for employment use are located close to houses, residential amenity will be the primary consideration".

The policy itself states that: "Business uses will be permitted outside established employment areas provided that there will be no significant impact on the amenities of adjoining residents and businesses."

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Detailed below are summary extracts from a statement submitted by the applicant fully explains the application proposed and its relationship to application 09/00507/VCN. This level of detail is necessary to properly understand the proposal and their background.

Careful consideration appears to have been given to the Inspector's Decision in respect of the application 06/00699/FUL for the 24 hour opening. The Inspector's Decision Letter comments "I conclude on balance that continuing to open the service station on a 24 hour basis as proposed would be likely to unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular reference to noise and disturbance late at night, and in the early hours of the morning……"

In the light of such clear cut comments the applicants have realised that further applications for 24 hour use are most unlikely gain the support of the Council. They have therefore sought to investigate whether a more modest extension of the hours of opening may be acceptable. To this end they have appointed noise consultants to examine the impacts of opening an hour earlier in the morning, i.e. at 6 am, together with identical Sunday opening hours of 6 am to 11pm.

The applicants Acoustic Consultants undertook surveys of the subject site to consider the noise implications associated with the proposed hours of opening 06:00 to 23;00 hours Monday to Sunday. The results of that survey and the Acoustic Consultants recommendations are included within the Noise Assessment Report which accompanies the application. That report has also been the subject of discussions with the Councils Environmental Health Officer, and it is understood that the recommendations set out at the end of this report accepted by the Environmental Health Service.

The Acoustic Consultation Report concludes that there would be little adverse environmental impact from these longer opening hours and this is used to support the proposal for longer opening hours as requested. The applicants do, however recognise the controversial nature of their request and have applied for a temporary 12 month consent in order for the Council to gauge the impacts, adverse or otherwise, of the longer opening hours after this period and review the decision if necessary. If members wished to support this application it is considered that such a decision accords entirely with government advice regarding the use of temporary planning permissions.

On the basis of this evidence the applicants have formally requested that condition 2 of Application No.01/87/00325 is amended to allow the station to open between the hours of 6am to 11pm Mon – Sunday for a temporary period of 12 months.

Officers have considered this proposal at length. It has to be taken into consideration that the station occupies a prominent site on the busy main road into the City Centre. Background noise and disturbance is inevitably higher than more suburban locations. The Consultants conclusions regarding potential disturbance from noise are persuasive and are not contested by the Environmental Health Officer. With the added safeguard of a temporary consent it is difficult to find convincing reasons for opposing this application

The applicants Acoustic Consultant also considered the impacts of the car wash and the later approved jet wash. The jet wash already has controls over the hours of operation (8am to 6pm) and there is no intention to change these. The car wash which was approved much earlier currently has no controls over its operation. Given this background and the fact that it is an enclosed structure, and therefore a quieter operation, it is considered reasonable to seek to impose controls in line with the original hours of opening i.e. 7am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 10 pm Sunday.

Page 19 The acoustic consultants report then goes onto consider the impact of deliveries to the site but this is dealt with in the following agenda application which seeks to modify the conditions attached to Application No. 03/01157/FUL

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 The Planning Committee made it very clear in dealing with the last application that it did not consider that this was an appropriate location for a 24 hour filling station given the proximity of other residential property, notwithstanding its main road position. The appeal Inspector clearly supported this decision. Any relaxation from this stance is clearly a matter of judgement as to what is reasonable. To this extent the applicant has gone to some lengths by employing a consultant to examine the implications of a modest extension of hours at the site and offered acceptance of a temporary consent to monitor the impact.

Having regard to these factors it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and permission is recommended for a temporary twelve month period.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. This permission relates to the temporary modification of Condition no 2 of Permission 87/0325 only and does not purport to grant consent for any other matters.

2 Condition no 2 of Permission 87/0325 is herby temporarily modified to rear: The petrol filling station shall only open between 06:00 and 23:00 hours Monday to Sunday, and at no other time without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. Such hours of operation shall be for a limited period, being the period of twelve months from the date of his Decision. At the end of that period, the opening hours of the petrol filling station shall return to between 07:00 and 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and 08:00 to 22:00 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays, and at no other time without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. Furthermore the hours of use of the associated enclosed car wash shall be limited to 07.00 to 23.00 hours on Monday to Saturday and 08.00 to 22.00 hours on Sundays and bank holidays.

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

1. None

Page 20 AgendaAgenda Item Item 9 Committee Date Application Number

A9 27 July 2009 09/00507/VCN

Application Site Proposal

BP Filling Station Application for variation of conditions 4 and 5 regarding opening hours and hours of Scotforth Road deliveries/collections on application 03/01157/FUL

Lancaster

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr Inayat Munshi Ms Susan Hughes

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

21 July 2009 Awaiting consultee responses

Case Officer Mr Martin Culbert

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approve, 1 year temporary permission

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This site is the existing service station which fronts on to the eastern side Scotforth Road A6. The Bowling Green Public House and Booths Supermarket lie to the south of the site but otherwise it is almost completely surrounded by residential development. The main service station building, which also contains a shop and an automated teller machine, is situated alongside the southern boundary of the site. Jet wash, vacuum and airline facilities are set back from the road in the centre of the site beyond the fuel pump forecourt area. A car wash building is situated adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, next to the nearest dwelling. The opening hours of the service station are restricted by condition 2 of permission 87/0325 and condition 4 of permission 03/01157/FUL to 0:700 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 08:00 to 22:00 on Sunday,

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 This proposal is complementary to application 09/00506/VCN and should be considered in association with that application.

This proposal is a full application to amend condition 4 of permission 03/01157/FUL, to modify the opening hours of the Service Station to 06:00 to 23:00 Monday to Sunday for a trial period of 12 months (as with the modification of condition 2 of 87/0325) and to amend condition 5 of permission 03/01157/FUL to prevent deliveries taking place outside the hours of 07:00 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 08:00 to 22:00 on Sunday and Bank Holidays, ie. their existing approved hours.

3.0 Site History

3.1 This site has a long and complex history of which very little is of direct relevance to the consideration of this application.

Page 21 Planning permission was originally granted for the development of this site as a petrol filling station in 1979 under application 79/1024. This restricted opening hours to 07:30 to 22:00 Monday to Sunday.

In 1987 permission 87/0325 was granted to extend the opening hours to 07:00 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 08:00 to 22:00 on Sunday.

In 1993 an application 93/00711, to extend opening to 24 hours was refused on the grounds that it would cause unacceptable disturbance and loss of amenity to the residents of nearby dwellings.

In 2003 an application 03/01157/FUL for a jet wash facility was approved subject to restricting its hours of use to 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Sunday.

In 2006 an application 08/00699/FUL to extend opening to 24 hours was refused for the same reasons as the previous similar application.

In 2007 a subsequent appeal 07/00009/REF was dismissed by the Inspector for the following reason:- “I conclude on balance that continuing to open the service station on a 24 hour basis as proposed would be likely to unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular reference to noise and disturbance late at night and in the early hours of the morning, contrary to LP Policy EC6 and the aims of PPG24 and PPG4. Furthermore, I conclude that condition no. 2 is reasonable and necessary as a means of safeguarding the living conditions of those residents and I am also satisfied that it meets the other tests of conditions set out in Circular 11/95.”

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Chief Environmental No objection to 12 months temporary permission Health Officer

County Highways No observation

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Seven letters have been received from residents in the local area objecting to the proposal on the grounds of increased noise and disturbance from cars, deliveries, use of air machine and HGC parking on both sides of the A6 to use the shop, all at an unsocial time before 07:00.

No need to open at 06:00, very little traffic at that time, general noise and disturbance has increased dramatically in recent times following the closure of Toll Bar Filling Station and the introduction of cycle lanes on the A6 which have reduced the carriageway to one lane causing frequent queues past the filling station entrances and difficulties for people entering and leaving the site.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 The preamble to Policy EC15 of the Lancaster District Local Plan (Business and Industrial Development Outside Employment Areas), a copy of which is appended to this statement, suggests that:-

“Whilst most employment development will take place on identified sites, some services uses can satisfactorily be located in residential areas. Some businesses outside employment areas may also need to expand and appropriate employment development outside employment areas will be allowed where compatible with other policies of the Local Plan”.

Page 22

However, it also goes on to advise that:-

“Where proposals for employment use are located close to houses, residential amenity will be for the primary consideration”.

The policy itself states that:-

“Business uses will be permitted outside established employment areas provided that there will be no significant impact on the amenities of adjoining residents and businesses.”

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The first element of this submission is to amend condition 4 regarding the hours of opening on Application No. 03/01157/FUL. This is an identical to the request on the previous agenda item Application No.09/00506/VCN. As mentioned in that report the hours of opening for the station site were identically controlled in two separate applications in 1987 and 2003. For administrative reasons and consistency it is important that the approved hours are identical in both submissions, hence this application which in part duplicate the earlier one.

Having said that the reasons for supporting the amended hours of opening are all set out in the preceding report and are not repeated here.

On balance officers have concluded that a temporary permission for extended opening hours could be supported and recommended accordingly.

The second part of this application also seeks the modification of condition 5 of application 03/01157/FUL. This was aimed at controlling deliveries to the site and currently states:-

“No deliveries or collections shall take place outside the hours of business hereby approved”.

This condition was imposed to ensure that deliveries such as petrol tanker supplies did not take place at unsocial hours, outside the normal hours of opening of the business causing unacceptable nuisance. With the extended hours of opening now proposed, modest as they are, the potential for additional harm to the amenity of the area has been recognised by the applicants and they have suggested that control of delivery hours should remain as per the present opening hours i.e. 0700 hrs to 23.00 hours Monday to Saturday and 08.00 hours to 22.00 hours on Sundays and Bank holidays

This is considered to be a further essential safeguard by your officers to avoid potential nuisance to nearby residents and is fully supported

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 The conclusions with regard the extended opening hour are detailed in the conclusion to the previous report (09/00506/VCN). It is considered the modest extension to the existing opening hours can be supported for a temporary period of twelve months to allow the authority to monitor the situation. The retention of the existing controls over deliveries in seen as a further safeguard to protecting the amenity of the area and is also supported

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED for a temporary period of 12 months subject to the following conditions:

1. This permission relates to the temporary modification of condition nos. 4 and 5 of Permission 03/01157/FUL only and does not purport to grant consent for any other matters.

2. Condition No. 4 of Permission 03/01157/FUL hereby temporarily modified to read:- “The petrol filling station shall only between 06:00 hrs and 23:00 hrs Monday to Sunday, and at no other time without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. Such hours of operation Page 23 shall be for a limited period, being the period of twelve months from the date of this decision. At the end of that period the opening hours of the petrol filling station shall return to between 07:00 hrs to 23:00 hrs Monday to Saturday and 08:00 hrs to 22:00 hrs on Sunday and Bank Holidays, and at no other time without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority.

3. “No delivery shall take place at or be dispatched from the site outside the hours of 07:00 hrs to 23:00 hrs Monday to Saturday and 08:00 hrs to 22:00 hrs on Sundays and Bank Holidays”.

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

1. None

Page 24 AgendaAgenda Item Item 10 Committee Date Application Number

A10 27 July 2009 09/00627/CU

Application Site Proposal

14 Gage Street Change of us from retail shop (A1) to lettings office (A2) Lancaster

Lancashire

LA1 1UH

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Miss Charlotte Horn

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

19 August 2009 None.

Case Officer Petra Williams

Departure No

Approve subject to comments received following Summary of Recommendation expiration of the site notice on 29th July 2009

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application relates to a currently vacant shop unit in Gage Street which is within a row of properties that is designated as Other Key Frontage close to Dalton Square. The property is situated in a peripheral location to the main shopping centre and is within the City Conservation Area. There are a mixture of uses on Gage Street ranging from retail (Class A1), solicitors and bookmakers (Class A2) and cafés (Class (A3),

1.2 The street is used largely as a thoroughfare for pedestrians to and from the main shopping area to the west and car parks to the east of the city centre.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The applicant proposes a change of use from retail shop (A1) to a letting agency (A2) with opening hours of 9am to 5:30pm.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The shop unit has been in the ownership of the current landlord since May 2009 and was vacant for a considerable period prior to that. The landlord has stated that the only serious interest that has been shown in the property is by the current applicant requiring an A2 use.

Page 25 4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The County Highways Department have been consulted. No response has yet been received, and any comments will be verbally reported to committee.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 None received to date.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Saved Policy S5 of the Lancaster District Local Plan states that within designated ‘Other Key Frontages’ the change of use of ground floor premises to A2 (financial and professional) uses will only be permitted where; an adjoining building is in A1 use and the proportion of any continuous retail frontage length in A2 use would not exceed 20%.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 A2 uses are a major element of Lancaster’s economy and can contribute to the diversity of uses within the centre and there is a concentration of office uses in the Dalton Square area. The proposal would meet the requirements of saved Policy S5 in so far as there is an A1 use in the adjoining building. However an A2 use at 14 Gage Street would mean that the proportion of this use class within this frontage would be 38% and would therefore not wholly accord with Policy.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 The proposal does not accord with the currently adopted policy S5 to protect A1 retail Frontage in these difficult economic times. It is important that the Council is seen to operate Flexibly and that every encouragement is given to commercial enterprise. On balance it is not considered that permitting an A2 use in this peripheral location would undermine the council’s aims of encouraging diversity and vitality in the town centre.

Recommendation

That subject to a final decision being delegated to the Head of Planning Services (for consideration of any comments received in response to the expiry of the site notice on 29 July 2009), planning permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard time limit 2. Use as approved plans

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.

Page 26 AgendaAgenda Item Item 11 Committee Date Application Number

A11 27 July 2009 09/00536/FUL

Application Site Proposal

90 Broadway Proposed single storey rear extension to form utility room and study Morecambe

Lancashire

LA4 5XY

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr G. Knight John Manley

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

6 August 2009 None

Case Officer Mr Daniel Ratcliffe

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approve

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This application would normally be dealt with under delegated powers but has been placed on Committee as the applicant is a City Councillor.

1.2 The property is a detached two storey dwelling situated on the east side of Broadway in Morecambe. The neighbouring properties are of similar style and design. Further along Broadway and within the surrounding area properties vary in style from large detached and semi detached to flatted accommodation.

1.3 The property has a grey pebbledash exterior with Redland Rosemary roof tiles and white upvc windows. There is a two storey extension to the rear, a sunroom extension and a detached garage to the rear side of the property.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application proposes the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of the property. The extension will sit directly adjacent to the detached garage and will have a pitched roof also matching that of the garage building. The extension will have a width of 3 metres and will project some 6 metres from the rear elevation into the rear garden. It is proposed to house a study, utility room and ground floor toilet.

2.2 The building is proposed to be finished in materials to match the existing property.

3.0 Site History

3.1 None.

Page 27 4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 None.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 None received at the time of compiling this report.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 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.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The rear garden is enclosed on all sides by a substantial 2 metre high fence. The existing garage within the garden minimises the potential for impact on the neighbour to the north and a similar garage along the boundary of the neighbouring property to the opposite side has the same effect.

7.2 Vehicular access to the garage is retained and direct access to the rear garden can be gained to the opposite [south] side of the property if required. The extension, although large, still allows for are reasonable sized garden area.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 It is considered the extension will have very little impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents and the proposed design and materials are in keeping with the existing property. Therefore, planning permission is recommended.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit 2. Development in accordance with approved plans 3. Materials to match 4. Extension to be used for ancillary domestic purposes only

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

1. None.

Page 28 AgendaAgenda Item Item 12 Committee Date Application Number

A12 27 July 2009 09/00551/FUL

Application Site Proposal

4 St Pauls Drive Erection of 2 semi-detached houses on land adjacent to 4 St Pauls Drive Lancaster

Lancashire

LA1 4SR

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr And Mrs Clark Provision First Architecture

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

30 July 2009 N/A

Case Officer Mr Martin Culbert

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approve

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This site is located in a suburban residential area of semi-detached two storey houses, within the side garden to 4 St. Pauls Drive, on the west side of the road. The site rises steeply by approximately 3m from side to side between the two existing neighbouring houses and even more steeply from the private back lane through to the site frontage.

The site frontage is bounded by a low, mature, well kept hedge. The rear of the site marrows considerably and is fully occupied by a double garage set well into the steeply rising garden. Vehicular access is from the rear on an unmade private land which is well used by most of the neighbouring residents for access and parking. The existing garages on site and parking spaces appear to have been constructed to serve the existing house at no 4 St Pauls Drive, which has no other access or off street parking facility.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 This proposal is a full application for the excavation of the site by about 1.8 m on the cross fell, and the erection of a pair of small two storey semi-detached houses of traditional design and construction. Each unit would comprise a double and two single bedrooms, a kitchen diner and a lounge and are clearly aimed at first time buyers. This building would be of a similar size and proportion to the neighbouring semis but of different elevational design. The materials would be similar and revised plans have been requested showing the similar architectural detailing to the neighbouring unit. The building would be sited in line with, but slightly forward of the houses to the south (up hill) and the floor levels would be set evenly between the neighbouring units on either side such that the proposed steps evenly down the hill between the two.

Page 29 The rear double garage would be retained and split into two singles, each with a parking space in front of it to provide each new unit with two spaces. A further off street parking space would be created next to the gable of the existing to serve that unit.

Both the proposed units and the existing house would have small rear gardens, two of them below what would normally be regarded in minimum private rear space for dwellings of this type but the attached neighbouring semi at No.2 already has much less rear space and all would look out over open vista across neighbouring gardens, as do the neighbours now.

3.0 Site History

3.1 At the end of last year an application 08/01110/FUL for the erection of a three storey block of three two bedroomed flats on this site was submitted. This was subsequently refused on the grounds of:

1. Over development on the site 2. Detrimental to the street scene and character and appearance of the locality 3. Injurious to the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers 4. Inadequate off street parking

Application Number Proposal Decision 08/01110/FUL Erection of 3 no. flats on land adjacent to 4 St Pauls Refused Drive

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response County Highways No objection in principle but suggest one more parking space should be provided. United Utilities No objection Environmental Any views will be reported at Committee Health Property Services Any views will be reported at Committee

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Thirteen letters and a petition containing eight signatures have been received objecting to this proposal on the following grounds:

• No need for development here • Spoil the outlook and overall appearance of the area • No 4 has structural problems and this development will make it worse • It will add to parking problems in the area • It will increase hazards to pedestrians and cyclists • Loss of view for residents opposite • Properties with a very small garden will be detrimental to the area • New dwelling will be out of keeping with the area • Loss of light • Will add to traffic to the back lane, adding to its state of disrepair

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 There are no specific policies relating to this site. Saved Policy H12 (Standards for New Housing) Spg12 (The Residential Design code) and Policy SC5 (achieving Quality Design) of the Core Strategy apply in general terms.

Page 30 7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 This proposal is a significant reduction and improvement over the previous scheme. It is now in keeping with the scale and character of the existing surrounding development and is anticipated that revised plans will be received in time for Committee which will match the architectural detailing of the neighbouring dwellings.

In terms of street scene impact and amenity it will fill in between the existing dwellings, stepping from one to the other in equal steps and be of similar proportions and materials. It’s not considered that this proposal will have a detrimental impact on the character or quality of the area when viewed either from the front of the back. The windows in the rear development will face out across the bottoms of the rear gardens to properties in St Pauls Road but this will be at right angels to the run of gardens. The view of the back of the houses on St Pauls Road will be at a full 45 degrees from the new windows and much less disrupting and damaging than the overlooking already taking place from the rear of the existing dwellings at No’s 2 and 4, St Pauls Drive, which look out across that part of the same gardens which is next to the back of the houses and is most intrusive to private amenity. Furthermore, this view from the ground floor, living room windows will be screened by privacy on the property boundaries, designed to screen the view of all of the lower land neighbouring gardens to the north and west.

In terms of the scale of the development, this proposal fits onto the site well, with adequate space on either side. The existing double garage and parking spaces to the rear are adequate to be divided into two and upgraded. Each new dwelling will meet council’s standards of two off street spaces and the access, through private and unmade is well used by other neighbouring residents and in good condition. The existing house at No 4, will be provided with one off street space from the front street, similar to the attached dwelling and many others in the vicinity. These dwellings were built without any off street parking facilities and on street parking is available along all frontages.

The structural problems associated with the existing dwelling at No 4 appear to be unique to that property and are probably associated with a fault in the foundation construction. Such issues are a matter for consideration and detail design under the Building Regulations and are not a matter which can be considered at the Planning Stage.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 It is considered that this revised proposal addresses all of the issues and failings of the previous proposal. The proposal would produce two small, but well equipped three bedroomed starter homes at a time when such accommodation is in short supply. The proposal meets the councils parking and space standards for urban Infill and will achieve the maximum beneficial use of this under utilised suburban brown land and dill a conspicuous gap in the local streetscape. It is considered therefore that this proposal can be supported.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard Full Permission 2. Amended Plans 3. Development in accordance with approved plans 4. Samples of the slate, render, windows and doors to be agreed 5. Details of the roof, ridge, eaves, verges, rainwater goods, windows and doors including external reveals and finishes to be agreed. 6. Details of boundary and screen fencing, external works and landscaping to be agreed. 7. Details of the separation and upgrade of the garages and parking spaces to be agreed. 8 Before any of the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied the garages and parking spaces to serve these dwellings and No.4 St Pauls Drive shall be remedied in accordance with a scheme to be agreed. 9. Before any of the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied the structural defects associated with the rear of No 4 St Pauls Drive shall be remedied in accordance with a scheme to be agreed.

Page 31 10. Before any of the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied privacy screens shall be erected on the rear boundaries of the properties in accordance with a scheme to be agreed and thereafter retained. 11. Permitted Development Rights removed.

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

1. None.

Page 32 AgendaAgenda Item Item 13 Committee Date Application Number

A13 27 July 2009 09/00516/ADV

Application Site Proposal

Storey Institute Erection of 2 fascia signs

Meeting House Lane

Lancaster

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Lancaster City Council, Mr Trotman

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

22 July 2009 Committee Cycle

Case Officer Mrs Jennifer Rehman

Departure No

Recommendation of approval for Advertisement Summary of Recommendation Consent, subject to referral to the Government Office North West.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 For clarification purposes, this application and the corresponding listed building application would under normal circumstances be determined under delegated powers. However, the City Council own the building and are also the applicants. As such they should be considered by the Committee before being referred to the Government Office North West.

1.2 The Storey Institute is a Grade II listed building designed by Paley and Austin, constructed between 1887-1891. The Institute, which is of significant architectural and historic merit, occupies a prominent corner position at the junction of Meeting House Lane and Castle Hill and is an important and imposing building within the Castle Conservation Area. The building dominates the approach to the Castle Hill Precinct and contributes significantly to the City’s townscape.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 Advertisement Consent is sought for the erection of two internally illuminated fascia signs, each to be located on the outer walls of the entrance porch fronting Meeting House Lane. The signs comprise of a ring, with a diameter of 600mm, enclosing an ‘i’, measuring 450mm in height. They would be constructed and finished in a black powder coated metal with a depth of 100mm, located 2.2m above ground floor level. The overall projection from the stone wall measures 120mm. The signs will be illuminated with static pink backlit light emitting diodes (LEDs).

2.2 The signs are proposed to advertise the new Lancaster Tourist Information Centre, which has recently relocated into the Institute from its previous location on Castle Hill.

Page 33 3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has a lengthy planning history particularly relating to works requiring listed building consent. The most relevant histories are as follows:

Application Number Proposal Decision 07/00384/DPA & Change of use and listed building applications for the Permitted 07/00385/LB conversion to centre for creative industries, comprising of auditorium, bar and cafe, creative workspaces, Folly Gallery and Storey Gallery and associated admin offices 06/00405/DPA & Change of use and listed building applications for the Permitted 06/00406/LB conversion to centre for creative industries, comprising of auditorium, bar and cafe, creative workspaces, Folly Gallery and Storey Gallery and associated admin offices. 98/00243/DPA & Erection of non-illuminated individually lettered sign and Permitted 98/00244/LB two vertical banners

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 None.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 None received.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 The following Lancaster District Local Plan policies are relevant:

Policy E41 requires proposals for advertisements in the Castle Conservation Area to be refused if they do not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area, by virtue of their position, size, materials, colour, size and style of lettering, including the means of illumination.

Policy E33 seeks to ensure that internal or external alterations to listed buildings would not have an adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character or interest of the buildings or their surroundings.

6.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 7 ‘Shopfronts and Advertisements Design Guide’ sets out the Councils design requirements for new advertisements in the City Centre and its conservation areas.

6.3 The following Lancaster District Core Strategy policies are relevant:

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) sets out a strategic policy objective to safeguard, protect and enhance listed buildings and conservation areas within the District.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The key issues for Members to consider in determining this application are whether the proposal satisfies the criteria set out in Policy E41, E33 and SPG 7 and in particular whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of the impact on the listed building and the conversation area.

7.2 With regards to compliance with the above policy considerations, it should be noted that the proposed signage has been significantly improved from earlier pre-application proposals, which involved neon internal illumination. Neon lighting is considered inappropriate and insensitive to the historic fabric and conservation status of many parts of the City Centre. Very few shopfronts and advertisements use neon illumination.

7.3 As a general rule, advertisements within the Conservation Area and on Listed Buildings are to be discreet and sympathetic, usually involving individual lettering and external lighting. Internally illuminated box lettering is generally resisted. Page 34

7.4 Notwithstanding the above, these proposals have been the subject of pre-applications discussions and have been agreed by the Council’s Senior Conservation Officer.

7.5 Whilst the form of the signage is not typical for the area, consideration has been given to the size of the advertisements proposed and their position on the building. It is concluded that the advertisements would not over-dominate the appearance of the listed building or adversely affect the wider character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The stonework will remain exposed between the ring and the ‘i’ with the fixings made into the mortar rather than the stone ashlar. Black powder coated lettering is proposed to match the existing black rainwater goods with subtle LED halo illumination, coloured pink.

7.6 Whilst the pink tone may be surprising to some Members, it is believed that this will be a subtle colour. However, in reaching a recommendation of approval, a condition is proposed to control the exact colour of the illumination.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 Based on the above considerations and taking into account the considerable pre-application discussions, it is recommended that Advertisement Consent can be supported, subject to the following conditions:

Recommendation

That subject to referral of the application to the Government Office, Advertisement Consent BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard Advertisement Timescale – 5 years 2. Standard Advertisement condition - owners consent to display 3. Standard Advertisement condition - signs not to endanger highway, railway etc 4. Standard Advertisement condition - maintenance of advertisements 5. Standard Advertisement condition - advertisements should not endanger the public 6. Standard Advertisement condition - where signs to be removed, site is left in a good condition 7. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, the signage shall have a matt or satin finish. 8. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, the exact colour of lighting is to be agreed on site.

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

1. None

Page 35 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 14

A14 27 July 2009 09/00517/LB

Application Site Proposal

Storey Institute Listed building application for the erection of 2 external fascia signs, internal signage and window Meeting House Lane graphics

Lancaster

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Lancaster City Council

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

30 July 2009 None

Case Officer Mrs Jennifer Rehman

Departure No

Recommendation of approval for Listed Building Summary of Recommendation Consent, subject to referral to the Government Office North West.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 This is the Listed Building Consent application that accompanies the Advertisement Consent application that appears on this agenda. Once again, this application and the corresponding listed building application would under normal circumstances be determined under delegated powers. However, the City Council own the building and are the applicants of the applications. As such they should be considered by the Committee before being referred to the Government Office North West.

1.2 The Storey Institute is a Grade II listed building designed by Paley and Austin, constructed between 1887 - 1891. The Institute, which is of significant architectural and historic merit, occupies a prominent corner position at the junction of Meeting House Lane and Castle Hill and is an important and imposing building within the Castle Conservation Area. The building dominates the approach to the Castle Hill Precinct and contributes significantly to the City’s townscape.

1.3 The application relates specifically to the elevation facing Meeting House Lane, which has many architectural l features, in particular the entrance doorway where the signs are proposed. The listing description refers specifically to the Tuscan columns on either side of the doorway and their strapwork decoration and cornice detailing.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 Listed Building Consent is sought for the erection of two internally illuminated fascia signs, each to be located on the outer walls of the entrance porch fronting Meeting House Lane. The signs comprise of a ring, with a diameter of 600mm, enclosing an ‘i’, measuring 450mm in height. They shall be constructed and finished in a black powder coated metal with a depth of 100mm, located 2.2m above ground floor level. The overall projection from the stone wall measures 120mm. The signs shall be illuminated with static pink backlit LEDs. Page 36

2.2 However this Listed Building Consent application also includes proposals which do not require the benefit of Advertisement Consent, namely internal signage and window graphics to two of the windows on the Meeting House Lane elevation.

2.3 The signs are proposed to advertise the new Lancaster Visitor Information Centre, which has recently relocated into the Institute from its previous location on Castle Hill.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has a lengthy planning history particularly relating to works requiring listed building consent. The most relevant histories are as follows:

Application Number Proposal Decision 07/00384/DPA & Change of use and listed building applications for the Permitted 07/00385/LB conversion to centre for creative industries, comprising of auditorium, bar and cafe, creative workspaces, Folly Gallery and Storey Gallery and associated admin offices 06/00405/DPA & Change of use and listed building applications for the Permitted 06/00406/LB conversion to centre for creative industries, comprising of auditorium, bar and cafe, creative workspaces, Folly Gallery and Storey Gallery and associated admin offices. 98/00243/DPA & Erection of non-illuminated individually lettered sign and Permitted 98/00244/LB two vertical banners

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response

English Heritage No objections. The application should be determined in accordance with policy and specialist conservation advice.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 None.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 The following Lancaster District Local Plan policies are relevant:

Policy E41 requires proposals for advertisements in the Castle Conservation Area to be refused if they do not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area, by virtue of their position, size, materials, colour, size and style of lettering, including the means of illumination.

Policy E33 seeks to ensure that internal or external alterations to listed buildings would not have an adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character or interest of the buildings or their surroundings.

6.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 7 ‘Shopfronts and Advertisements Design Guide’ sets out the Councils design requirements for new advertisements in the City Centre and its conservation areas.

6.3 The following Lancaster District Core Strategy policies are relevant:

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) sets out a strategic policy objective to safeguard, protect and enhance listed buildings and conservation areas within the District. Page 37

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The key issue for Members to consider in determining this application is whether the proposal satisfies the criteria set out in Policy E33, and in particular whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of the impact on the special character and historic interest of the listed building.

7.2 With regards to compliance with the above policy considerations, it should be noted that the proposed signage has been significantly improved from earlier pre-application proposals, which involved neon internal illumination. As a general rule, advertisements within the Conservation Area and on Listed Buildings are to be discrete and sympathetic, usually involving individual lettering and external lighting. Internally illuminated box lettering is generally resisted.

7.3 Notwithstanding the above, these proposals have been the subject of considerable pre-applications discussions involving the Council’s Senior Conservation Officer.

7.4 Whilst the form of the signage is not typical within the locality, the size of the signage and their position on the building would not over dominate the appearance of the listed building or detract from its special architectural and historic interest. In particular, the proposed fascia signs shall not extend beyond the side wall of the entrance porch and shall not interfere with the detailing of the Tuscan columns specifically referred to in the listing description. The stonework will remain exposed between the ring and the ‘i’ with the fixings made into the mortar rather than the stone ashlar. Black powder coated lettering is proposed to match the existing black rainwater goods with subtle LED halo illumination, coloured pink. Once again the exact colour of the lighting is subject to a condition imposed on this recommendation of approval.

7.5 The internal window graphics do undoubtedly have an effect on the appearance of the Listed Building. However the need for suitable directional advertising to attract visitors to the Information Centre is fundamental. There is also an argument to suggest that the use of internal graphics is less harmful to the listed structure than additional external signage, on the grounds it does not result in physical alterations to the building by external fixings. Internal graphics can easily be removed without causing undue harm.

7.6 It is noted that the submitted plans show only two window graphics on the Meeting House Lane elevation, but on site there are four. Clarification regarding whether the applicant seeks consent for the retention of all four or only the two shown on the plans will be sought and clarified verbally at the committee meeting.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 In conclusion and based on the previous pre-application discussions, the proposed signage is considered acceptable and compliant with Policy E33 of the Local Plan. The signage will not adversely affect the special character and appearance of the listed building. Members are therefore advised that the application can be supported.

Recommendation

That subject to referral of the application to the Government Office, Listed Building Consent BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. Standard Listed Building Consent 2. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, the signage shall have a matt or satin finish. 3. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, the exact colour of lighting to be agreed on site. 4. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, precise details of the type and location of fixings to be agreed with the Conservation Officer.

Page 38 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

1. None

Page 39 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 15

A 15 27th July 2009 09/00544/LB

Application Site Proposal

Palatine Hall Listed building application for the installation of CCTV cameras to the front and rear, and installation of a Dalton Square door entry system to the front entrance door

Lancaster

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Sheila Hall

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

30 July 2009 None

Case Officer Mr Karl Glover

Departure No

Grant permission with conditions Summary of Recommendation

Procedural Matters

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

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The property which forms the subject of this application is a three storey Grade ll Listed Building dating from the late eighteenth century and was originally built as the Roman Catholic Church for Lancaster. After 1859 the building was used as a public hall, music hall and later as a cinema before being converted into council offices in the early 1980s. It was subsequently listed in 1989. The building has an overall domestic appearance and is constructed in Sandstone Ashlar with natural slate roof.

1.2 The subject property is located in Dalton Square north of the Queen Victoria Memorial statue within the City Conservation Area.

1.3 The surrounding area comprises mainly of office and business use, the majority of which are also Listed Buildings and share a similar appearance to the subject building. The application site is unallocated within the Lancaster District Local Plan Map.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 Listed Building Consent is required for the siting of two small scaled dome CCTV cameras which are contained in stainless steel housing in a polished matt black, one is to be located above the main entrance door on the southern elevation of the building and the other is to be sited to the rear entrance within the recess of the north elevation. The application also includes the housing of a door entry system to the front entrance. Page 40

3.0 Site History

3.1 None relevant to this application.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response English Heritage No objections - The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of specialist conservation advice Conservation Support – The development is not seen to impact unduly on the architectural features Officer of the building

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No letters of objections have been received as a result of the site notice and press advertisement.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

Lancaster District Local Plan Policies – adopted April 2004

6.1 Policy E33 – Proposals involving external or internal alterations to a listed building which would have an adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character or interest of the buildings or their surroundings will not be permitted

6.2 Policy E35 – Development proposals which adversely affect the important views into and across a conservation area or lead to an unacceptable erosion of its historic form and layout will not be permitted.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 On the front elevation the CCTV camera will sit inside the door reveal, attached to the soffit, making it less obtrusive. Also on the front elevation the proposed bell and intercom is to be located in the same position as the historic bell system, this is seen to cover the scarring which has been left behind in the stonework. The fixings will be mounted in a hardwood frame painted in green smoke with a satin finish to match the adjacent recently painted front door.

7.2 At the rear of the building (northern elevation) the camera will be fitted to the office wall protruding at 90 degrees to the left of the door. Both cameras are to be fixed to the mortar joints in the stonework which is seen to minimise the impact on the building.

7.3 In principle the proposed installation of the CCTV and door entry system is seen to be acceptable due to the overall minimal scale of these structures. The design respects the existing building and its surroundings. As such there are no detrimental or adverse impacts upon the special architectural or historic character of the Listed Building.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 It is considered that this proposal is seen to be acceptable and complies with Local Policies; therefore Members are advised that the proposal can be supported. Members should also be aware that as the application site is within City Council ownership and is a Grade ll Listed Building therefore it shall be referred to the Government Office North West to be determined.

Recommendation

That subject to referral to the Government Office, Listed Building Consent BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: Page 41

1. Standard Listed Building Consent Timescale 2. Development to accord with approved plans

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

1. None

Page 42 AgendaAgenda Item Item 16 Committee Date Application Number

A16 27 July 2009 09/00533/DPA

Application Site Proposal

14 Prospect Grove, Morecambe Change of use from private dwelling to offices incorporating guest accommodation

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Lancaster City Council Lancaster City Council Housing Services

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

17 August 2009 Not applicable

Case Officer Peter Rivet

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 Number 14 is a two storey, two bedroom detached house in the centre of a group of old people's bungalows, built by the former Morecambe Borough Council. It was provided for a resident warden. There is a garden at the rear, with a detached garage accessed off the back lane behind Rosebery Avenue.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 Changes in the management arrangements for the site mean that there is no longer a full time resident warden. Instead, the site is to be looked after by three non-resident site managers who will also be responsible for Penhale Gardens in Heysham and Altham Walk in Westgate. It is therefore proposed to use the first floor accommodation as offices for them. The ground floor is to be adapted to provide a guest bedroom with an en-suite bathroom, for use by people visiting friends or relatives living in the bungalows.

2.2. The outside appearance of the building will not be affected. The small garden at the back of the property will be maintained by Council Housing Services, and it is expected that the lock up garage will be used for storage purposes.

3.0 Site History

3.1 There have been no recent planning applications involving this site.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Consultees Response Lancashire County No highway objections. Council Highways

Page 43 5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 None, at the time this report was prepared.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Policy SC4 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy sets out the principles which are intended to ensure that housing needs within the District are met.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 This proposal arises from the changing management needs of the local authority's housing stock. From a land use planning perspective, its impact on the surrounding area will be minimal and it is considered that the proposal is appropriate in terms of principle and neighbouring amenity.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 Taking the above matters into account, there are no land use planning reasons to object to the proposal.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard five year condition. 2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

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 44 AgendaAgenda Item Item 17 Committee Date Application Number

A17 27 July 2009 09/00599/CCC

Application Site Proposal

Heysham High School, Limes Avenue, Heysham Erection of new sports hall

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Lancashire County Council Graham Anthony Associates

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

Observations due 14 July 2009 Committee timetable

Case Officer Peter Rivet

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Objection

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 Heysham High School occupies land to the rear of a housing estate on the east side of Balmoral Road, backing on to the Morecambe to Heysham railway line. The site is an extensive one, with playing fields in addition to the main complex of buildings at the end of Limes Avenue.

1.2 Until recently there was a row of mature trees along the boundary behind the houses and bungalows in Osborne Grove and Clevelands Avenue, but they were removed last year.

1.3 Members are advised that this is a County Council application, and therefore the City Council is a consultee.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The school requires a new sports hall, which is proposed to site close to the northern site boundary. The area concerned was formerly occupied by temporary buildings which were removed some years ago. The building proposed would have be 8 metres high to eaves level (the equivalent of a two storey building) and would have a floorspace of 744 sq metres, sufficient for either one full size basketball court or four badminton courts. It would be similar in size and form to a modern industrial unit. The accommodation would include a plant room and storage facilities but no toilets or changing rooms. It would be available for use between 9:00am and 9:00pm daily.

2.2 The new hall would be finished externally in PVC cladding; the lower section would be terracotta coloured, and the upper part white. This material is considered by the architects responsible for the design to be environmentally friendly as it is capable of being recycled at the end of its expected life of 25 years. The roof will be constructed of translucent PVC sheeting, to minimise the need for the use of artificial light.

2.3 The supporting statement indicates that Heysham High School has obtained recognition as an outstanding sports college and the extra facilities are considered necessary for it to develop this role, in addition to the existing gymnasium. Although its appearance will be different from that of the existing school buildings it is argued that it will be in keeping with their general character. It states that the site has been selected as the most suitable because of its proximity to existing facilities, security and the need to retain existing sports pitches. Page 45

2.4 It also notes that the site is within an area considered to be at risk from flooding. It is proposed to address this issue by raising the floor level of the building 200mm above the existing ground level.

3.0 Site History

3.1 Recent applications involving the school site are as follows:

Application Number Proposal Decision 03/00311/FUL Construction of all weather sports pitch with floodlighting Approved and erection of outdoor changing facilities 04/01572/CPA Erection of a 2 storey building to provide 9 additional Approved classrooms and ancillary accommodation together with relocation of car park to provide 7 spaces including disabled parking space 05/00253/CPA Retrospective application for two steel containers for Approved storage of outdoor sports equipment.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The County Council is responsible for consultation. However the City Council has consulted its Environmental Health Service, and their observations are awaited.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 As the application is one for the County Council to determine, they are responsible for carrying out neighbour consultations.

5.2 Notwithstanding this, one letter of objection has been received by the City Council on behalf of a neighbour, who objects on the following grounds: - The building is too close to houses - Its size and design are inappropriate for this location - The intended times of use, 9:00-21:00 hours, will increase traffic to the area - Insufficient information is available on the range of activities - Possible problems from ventilation and/r air conditioning equipment.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Policy SC8 of the District Core Strategy seeks to build sustainable communities by ensuring that existing and future residents and visitors have access to sports facilities, green spaces, and greenspace networks. Policy ER7 states that the City Council will promote renewable energy by, among other things, promoting micro-renewables through its development control policies.

6.2 The complex of school buildings on the site is not shown as allocated for any specific purpose in the Lancaster District Local Plan. However, the associated playing fields are identified as greenspace and are therefore covered by "saved" policy E29. This protects them from development, but the policy states that exceptionally, essential education or community related development or the limited expansion of existing uses will be permitted.

6.3 "Saved" Policy R21 requires that where appropriate, new development should be accessible to people with disabilities.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The principle of additional facilities for the school is to be welcomed, and the external appearance of the building would in itself be satisfactory. However its relationship with some of the adjoining houses is a matter of concern. The new building would be within 15 metres of the back of the two bungalows closest to the site, at 30 and 32 Clevelands Avenue. This distance would be acceptable for the two storey blank gable wall of a house, but the building proposed is significantly larger than this and would have a correspondingly greater impact on their light and aspect.

Page 46 7.2 Policy R21 requires that the building should be accessible to people with disabilities. The Design and Access Statement claims that it will be, but it also states that the floor level will be 200mm above the existing ground level and the plans show stepped rather than ramped accesses.

7.3 There is no very obvious reason why a sporting facility of this kind needs to be sited so close to the main teaching complex. It would seem logical to find a location for it which relates better to the extensive open sports facilities on the site, where this problem of neighbouring amenity would not arise.

7.4 If, for operational reasons, it is considered essential to put a new building here rather then elsewhere on the school site, it is reasonable to require that the trees removed from the site last year should be replaced by new ones.

7.5 The Environmental Health Officers views are awaited to see if the is a concern regarding possible noise nuisance from the use.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 Taking these factors into consideration, it is recommended that the County Council be advised that the City Council does not feel able to support the proposal in its present form.

Recommendation

That the County Council be advised that the City Council OBJECTS to the proposal in its present form, because:

1. The building would have an adverse impact on the light and aspect of the adjoining houses and bungalows in Clevelands Avenue, because of its size and position. Consideration should be given to an alternative location where it would relate better to the outdoor sports facilities on the site. If it is considered necessary, for operational reasons, to provide a new building on this part of the school site a programme of new boundary planting should be required as a condition of the consent.

2. The scheme as submitted is contrary to policy R21 of the Lancaster District Local Plan, as the floor would be 200mm above ground level and no provision has been made for a ramped access suitable for wheelchair users.

3. As requested by Environmental Health Officer.

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

1. None.

Page 47 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 18

A18 27 July 2009 09/00553/CCC

Application Site Proposal

Nightingale Hall Application for temporary permission for timber recycling for biomass energy Quernmore Road

Lancaster

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

John Dainty M L Planning Services Ltd

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

31 July 2009 N/A

Case Officer Mr Martin Culbert

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation No Objection

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The site is located on a large area of hard standing in the bottom of a large hallow, surrounded by concrete retaining walls and woodland, at the site of the former Nightingale Hall Farm animal rendering plant, off Quernmore Road, Lancaster.

1.2 Beyond the site boundaries the land rises steeply to the north, east, south and south west. It is surrounded by school playing fields to the north and west, and by open fields and a cemetery to the east and south. There is a small group of four terraced houses which occupy an isolated pastier within the hallow, to the south of the operational site. These are well screened from the operational site by woodland planting and all share a private access road which is separate from the access to Nightingale Hall. To the west of the junction of the site access with Quernmore Road, lies a small group of detached properties which are set well back from these roads behind substantial boundary walls. There are no other residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the site, the nearest being Derwent Road, Lancaster near Ridge Lea Hospital, all about equidistant.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 This proposal is a full application to Lancashire County Council for the regularisation of the existing use of the site for the recycling of waste timber for biomass energy, for a temporary period of one year. This item is therefore brought before the Committee as a consultation from the County Planning Committee.

2.2 The proposal is therefore a specialist waste transfer station. This will now involve approximately 5 tipper wagons depositing inert timber on site per day. This is converted into one 22 ton load of shredded timber per day going to a single biomass plant. This involves shredding and screening of waste timber by two mobile units prior to being bulked up into larger vehicles. The plant and machinery is all mobile, grouped together externally and moved to the different parts of the site as necessary on a day to day basis. The applicant is the current temporary tenant of the site and is also Page 48 undertaking the demolition, screening and crushing of all inert waste from the fire damaged buildings remaining from the former rendering use by Fats and Proteins.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The long established use of this site as an animal rendering plant came to an abrupt end in October 2005 following a substantial fire at the plant. The site has been largely unused since that time but little work to dismantle the plant or clear the site has been undertaken.

3.2 An outline application to redevelop the site for residential purposes was approved by committee on 21 August 2006. No Reserved Matters approval has been forthcoming.

3.3 A previous application for the same use as that which forms the subject of this application was refused by the County Council earlier this year for three reasons; namely that:

(i) The end location for the recycled timber was Scotland, therefore there was no reduction in the need to travel and the proposal was subsequently unsustainable;

(ii) The use of land is inappropriately located; and,

(iii) The use of land would generate unacceptable levels of traffic and noise.

Application Number Proposal Decision 06/00661/OUT Outline application for redevelopment of the site for Approved residential use 08/01270/CCC Temporary timber recycling for a period of 1 year for Refused biomass energy

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Environmental No objection in principle but conditions covering the following issues should be Health Service imposed:

1. Hours of working 2. Hours of mechanical shredding 3. Dust control 4. Vehicle Sheeting

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 None received.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 There are no saved policies relating to this site.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 This proposal is identical to that considered by Committee last year in respect of application 08/01270/CCC accept that the daily vehicle movement to and from the site, and therefore throughput of the waste material has now been reduced by half with only one bulk vehicle leaving per day.

This proposal involves the continued use of an existing industrial site which has for many years generated significant levels of severely nauseous olfactory pollution and HGV traffic. However this proposed use is for a very limited period only, and it involves inert materials with no chemical or Page 49 other processes except sorting shredding, it recycles waste material and feeds a renewable energy Biomass Plant and in the process will rid this site of all remaining buildings from the previous rendering use.

It is not anticipated that this temporary use will have an undue impact on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers or upon the local highway network and road safety, particularly given it limited duration and the ultimate community benefits it should deliver.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 Apart from a reduction in traffic movements the revised scheme does not address the other reasons for refusal.

Recommendation

The revised scheme does not address all of the previous reasons for refusal and it is assumed County will not wish to change its previous decision. In the event that the County propose to grant permission the City Council would wish the following conditions to be included in any decision:

1. Limitations regarding the duration of consent (12 months). 2. All buildings and structures and their materials of construction that remain from the previous animal rendering use to be removed from the site before the end of the 12-month permission. 3. No goods vehicles above transit size to access or egress the site entrance from or to the west along Quernmore Road, in the direction of the city centre. 4. The operating hours of the site are restricted to 08.00 – 18.00 Mon- Fri and 08.00-12.00 Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. 5. That mechanical shredding of materials is restricted to 8.30-16.30 only, with no shredding at weekends or on Bank Holidays. 6 That suitable steps are taken to prevent the occurrence of dust nuisance, for example, by the use of water sprays, wheel washes etc may be found appropriate. 7 That all vehicles leaving the site are suitable enclosed to prevent the escape of materials in transit.

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

1. None

Agenda Item 19 Page 50 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

LANCASTER CITY COUNCIL

APPLICATION NO DETAILS DECISION

08/01140/CU 262 Bowerham Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Change of use of property from Class C2 (Residential Institution) to Class C3 (Dwelling House) for Lancashire County Council (Scotforth East Ward)

08/01350/CU Stables Field 5092, Shore Road, Carnforth Application Permitted Retrospective application for the change of use of land for retention of stables, menage, kennels and parking area for a touring caravan for G Staveley (Carnforth Ward)

08/01411/FUL Development Site Opposite Packet Boat Inn, Main Application Permitted Road, Bolton Le Sands Demolition of existing shop and WC building, and erection of 3 new dwellings, provision of ancillary car parking area and new public WC facility for Mrs S Modley (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

09/00057/FUL Lancaster University, Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster Application Permitted Erection of new two storey building plus associated landscaped pond and new access road for Ms Suzanne Parkinson (University Ward)

09/00103/FUL H M Prison The Castle, Castle Park, Lancaster Application Permitted Installation of security netting between the rear of C wing and the main prison wall for HM Prison Service (Castle Ward)

09/00104/LB H M Prison The Castle, Castle Park, Lancaster Application Permitted Listed building application for the Installation of security netting between the rear of C wing and the main prison wall for HM Prison Service ( Ward)

09/00129/FUL Lancaster University, Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster Application Permitted Erection of a new four storey building for Mr Mark Swindlehurst (University Ward)

09/00210/FUL Ringers Hill, Back Lane, Wennington Application Permitted Erection of a 2 storey extension to the side, a single storey extension to the rear, canopy and porch and alterations to the existing access for Mr And Mrs Threlfall (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

09/00226/FUL The Cemetery, Bottomdale Road, Slyne Application Permitted Alterations to existing access and parking for Mrs Doreen Brookes (Slyne With Hest Ward)

09/00255/CU Bracken Dyke, Addington Road, Nether Kellet Application Permitted Alterations to storage building to form 2 no bedrooms for carers for Mr William McAvoy (Kellet Ward)

09/00276/FUL Hobson House, Hobsons Lane, Capernwray Application Permitted Erection of a two storey extension to the side for Mr J. Wright (Kellet Ward)

Page 51 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

09/00311/FUL Briarfield, Trailholme Road, Overton Application Permitted Erection of a single storey bedroom extension and conservatory to the rear for Mr Ronald Mitchell (Overton Ward)

09/00323/FUL 24 The Roundhouse, Nelson Street, Lancaster Application Withdrawn Erection of a single storey rear extension and cycle store for Mr J Mason (Dukes Ward)

09/00321/FUL 74 Coastal Road, Hest Bank, Lancaster Application Permitted Erection of a two storey side extension and rear access stairs for Mrs M Pennington (Slyne With Hest Ward)

09/00334/LB Sellet Hall, Hosticle Lane, Whittington Application Permitted Listed building application for various alterations for Mr C Hall (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

09/00345/FUL Land To The Rear Of 85, Main Road, Bolton Le Sands Application Permitted Erection of a two storey dwelling with integral garage for Mr J Woods (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

09/00351/FUL Conder House, Conder Green Road, Conder Green Application Permitted Erection of a first floor extension over existing garage to form an art studio and remodelling of the ground floor to provide a workshop and three car parking spaces for Mr Richard Mayson (Ellel Ward)

09/00354/FUL Lancaster Police Station, Thurnham Street, Lancaster Application Permitted Replacement windows to all elevations. for Mr Geof Awde (Dukes Ward)

09/00356/FUL Wilson Lodge, Nether Kellet Road, Over Kellet Application Withdrawn Erection of a single storey extension for Mrs L Smart (Kellet Ward)

09/00363/FUL 10 Longmere Crescent, Carnforth Application Permitted Erection of a conservatory to the rear for Mrs S Mortlock (Carnforth Ward)

09/00364/FUL 398A Marine Road East, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of dormer window to the rear, demolition of existing rear extension and replacement with two storey extension to basement and ground floor for Mr D Cowherd (Bare Ward)

09/00370/CU Cobwebs, Woodman Lane, Leck Application Permitted Change of use from agricultural land to domestic garden for Paul Kelly (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

09/00380/CU 19 Yorkshire Street West, Morecambe Application Permitted Change of use from retail (A1) to fish and chip shop (A5) for Mr J Ward (Harbour Ward)

09/00374/FUL 2 Queen Square, Lancaster Application Permitted Extension and alteration to form two new consulting rooms and relocate waiting room. for Mr Jonathan Whitford-Bartle (Dukes Ward)

09/00375/LB 2 Queen Square, Lancaster Application Permitted Listed building consent for extension and alterations to form two new consulting rooms and relocate waiting room. for Mr Jonathan Whitford-Bartle (Dukes Ward)

Page 52 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

09/00381/FUL 11 Greenwood Avenue, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Application Permitted Construct ramp into rear garden area to provide access for a disabled child. for Mr C Barlow (Slyne With Hest Ward)

09/00010/DIS Westgate Wanderers Football Field, Langridge Way, Request Completed Morecambe Discharge of conditions numbers 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 on application 08/00174/HYB for Morecambe Football Club ( Ward)

09/00383/FUL Central Garage, Bypass Road, Bolton Le Sands Application Permitted Retrospective application for re-roofing of workshop building for Mr T Barnfield (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

09/00395/FUL Brookside, Keerside, Arkholme Application Permitted Erection of a farmhouse with associated access and septic tank drainage system for Mr And Mrs Kevin Harrison (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

09/00394/FUL 55 Borrowdale Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Erection of a single storey extension to the side, a conservatory to the rear, new driveway and vehicular access, various other alterations and structural work for Mr D. Nelson (Bulk Ward)

09/00397/FUL The Old Stables, Hyning Home Farm, Milnthorpe Road Application Permitted Erection of garage extension for Mr M. Sandiford (Warton Ward)

09/00398/FUL 87 Devonshire Road, Morecambe Application Permitted Construction of a pitched roof to replace existing flat roof for Mr J. Cunningham (Heysham North Ward)

09/00400/FUL 88 Buckingham Road, Morecambe Application Permitted Construction of a pitched roof for Mr F Cooke (Heysham North Ward)

09/00403/FUL 31 Coastal Road, Hest Bank, Lancaster Application Permitted Dormer extension and sloping roof over existing flat roofed area for Mr I Briggs (Slyne With Hest Ward)

09/00405/FUL 15 Meadowside, Lancaster Application Permitted Erection of raised timber deck to rear and patent roof canopy for Mr M Rogers (Dukes Ward)

09/00404/FUL 20 Peplow Road, Heysham, Morecambe Application Permitted Erect domestic conservatory to ground floor flat for Mrs Watson (Heysham South Ward)

09/00407/FUL Capernwray Farm, Hobsons Lane, Capernwray Application Permitted Demolition of existing poly tunnel structure and erection of a steel portal frame building for Mr R Raw (Kellet Ward)

09/00410/FUL 82 Main Road, Slyne, Lancaster Application Permitted Erection of an orangery to the side for Mr A Simpson (Slyne With Hest Ward)

09/00411/FUL 2 Burrow Barn, Burrow Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Replacement of existing wooden french door for Mr G Pearson (University Ward)

Page 53 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

09/00414/FUL Rainbow Centre, Clarence Street, Morecambe Application Permitted Installation of solar panels for Mr J Fryer (Poulton Ward)

09/00399/FUL 9 Cedarwood Place, Lancaster Application Permitted Erection of an orangery extension to side and rear for Mr Tranter (John O'Gaunt Ward)

09/00415/FUL Lancaster Delivery Office, Fenton Street, Lancaster Application Refused Formation of a new access ramp, reformation of the vehicular access to the site including new barrier system and mesh fencing, provide new hand rail to the existing ramp, supply and install new mesh cage for the storage of yorks, form new deputy managers office and form new entrance lobby for Mr Mark Jones (Dukes Ward)

09/00420/PAM Near Waterslack Farm, Ford Lane, Silverdale Prior Approval Not Erection of a 10 metre telecommunications pole 8 Required metres above ground for Openreach (Silverdale Ward)

09/00416/AD Land Off, Borwick Lane, Warton Prior Approval Not Agricultural Determination for the erection of a steel Required portal framed building for Mr M Allen (Warton Ward)

09/00426/FUL 64 Coastal Road, Hest Bank, Lancaster Application Refused Erection of a conservatory to the rear for Mr I Hall (Slyne With Hest Ward)

09/00427/FUL 8 Thorns Avenue, Hest Bank, Lancaster Application Refused Erection of loft extension to form bedroom and bathroom for Mr T. Mather (Slyne With Hest Ward)

09/00431/PAM Adjacent Foxdale Cottage, Littledale Road, Brookhouse Prior Approval Not Erection of 1x 11m wooden pole 9m above ground and Required 1x 10m wooden pole 8m above ground for Openreach (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/00433/PAM Opposite Roeburn Glade, Roeburndale Road, Littledale Prior Approval Not Erection of a 10m wooden pole (8m above ground) and Required a 11m wooden pole (9m above ground) for Openreach (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/00434/PAM Field Opposite, Escowbeck House, Caton Road Prior Approval Not Erection of a 9m wooden pole (7m above ground) and a Required 10m wooden pole (8m above ground) for Openreach (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/00445/PAM Land Opposite Moorgate Barn, Littledale Road, Prior Approval Not Brookhouse Required Erection of a 10 m wooden pole 8.2 m above ground for Openreach (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/00446/PAM Gardeners Cottage Quernmore Park Hall, Quernmore Prior Approval Not Road, Quernmore Required Erection of 3no. 10m wooden poles 8m above ground for Openreach (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/00435/CU 324 Marine Road Central, Morecambe Application Permitted Change of use from guest house to 1 self contained maisonette and 2 self contained flats for Mr C. Lea (Poulton Ward)

Page 54 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

09/00436/FUL 15 Strands Farm Court, Hornby, Lancaster Application Refused Erection of conservatory to rear of property for Miss K England (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

09/00437/PAM Land Between Dale Head And Northern Terrace And Prior Approval Is Opposite Haweswater, Moss Lane, Silverdale Required Erection of 4 replacement telecommunications poles for Openreach (Silverdale Ward)

09/00438/PAM Know Hill Barn, Shore Road, Silverdale Application Withdrawn Erection of an 11m replacement telecommunications pole 9m above ground for Openreach (Silverdale Ward)

09/00443/FUL Lancaster University, Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster Application Permitted Replacement windows to Bowland College, Bowland Lecture Theatre, The Round House and elevations facing Alexandra Square to Bowland East, Bowland Tower, Bowland South and Library for Lancaster University (University Ward)

09/00444/PAM Scout Camp, The Row, Silverdale Prior Approval Not Erection of 2no. 9m wooden poles 7m above ground and Required 1no. 10m wooden pole 8m above ground for Openreach (Silverdale Ward)

09/0047/TCA Wennington Railway Station, Old Moor Road, Application Permitted Wennington Felling of sycamore ash and alder trees for Mrs Mary Taylor (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/00449/LB Castle Station, Westbourne Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Listed building application for the installation of an APM on platform 3 for Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (Castle Ward)

09/00461/PAM 2 Chestnut Avenue, Brookhouse, Lancaster Prior Approval Not Erection of a replacement pole with a 11m wooden pole Required (9m above ground) for Openreach (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/00462/FUL Westgate Medical Practice, Braddon Close, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of an extension to rear for The Westgate Medical Practice (Westgate Ward)

09/00451/CU Upper Foxholes Farm, Anyon Lane, Bay Horse Application Permitted Change of use of part of residential dwelling to holiday accommodation including single storey front and side extension for Mr J. Prest (Ellel Ward)

09/00453/FUL 4 Hadrian Road, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of a two storey rear extension and a single storey garden room for Mr & Mrs D Rumney (Torrisholme Ward)

09/00456/FUL 22 Gardner Road, Warton, Carnforth Application Permitted Erection of conservatory to the rear for Mr Greer (Warton Ward)

09/00457/FUL 37 Betony, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of an orangery to the rear for Mr & Mrs Speight ( Ward)

Page 55 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

09/00450/FUL Lunesdale South Well Maintenance Building, Park Application Permitted House Lane, Wray Construction of building over Hawswater aqueduct for maintenance purposes and to comply with current health and safety regulations for United Utilities (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/00474/FUL 5 Bazil Grove, Overton, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of a 2 storey extension to side and detached double garage to rear for Mr And Mrs Kilby (Overton Ward)

09/00475/FUL Lancaster University, Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster Application Permitted Replacement of boiler and associated works to the existing energy centre for Lancaster University (University Ward)

09/00479/FUL 22 Victoria Parade, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of a detached garage to the rear for Mr A Waterhouse (Poulton Ward)

09/00480/FUL 15 Greenwood Avenue, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Application Permitted Erection of a conservatory to the rear for Mr M Fell (Slyne With Hest Ward)

09/00484/PAM Side Of Claughton Terrace, Hornby Road, Claughton Prior Approval Not Erection of replacement 11m wooden pole (9m above Required ground) for Openreach (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/00485/FUL 24 Bridgeside, Carnforth Application Permitted Erection of a 1st floor extension to the side and retention of conservatory to the rear for Mr M Duggan (Carnforth Ward)

09/00486/CU Plough Cottage, The Green, Kirkby Lonsdale Road Application Permitted Conversion of existing outbuilding to pottery workshop for Mr James Hake (Kellet Ward)

09/00488/PAM Between Northern Terrace And Haweswater Cottage, Prior Approval Not Moss Lane, Silverdale Required Erection of 2no. 10m wooden poles (8.2m above ground) for Openreach (Silverdale Ward)

09/00482/FUL 411 Heysham Road, Heysham, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of ground floor side and rear extension to form granny flat for disabled person for Mrs C Connolly (Heysham South Ward)

09/00499/PAM Opposite 32 Station Road, Hornby, Lancaster Prior Approval Not Erection of a 9m wooden pole (2m below ground) for Required Openreach (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

09/00500/PAM Pott Yeats Farm, Littledale Road, Quernmore Prior Approval Not Erection of 3 replacement wooden poles and 1 new Required wooden pole for Openreach (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/00501/PAM Outside 10/11 Roman Crescent, Caton, Lancaster Prior Approval Not Erection of a 10m wooden pole (2m below ground) for Required Openreach (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

Page 56 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

09/00510/PAM Side Of 15 Station Road, Hornby, Lancaster Prior Approval Not Erection of a replacement 11m wooden pole (2m below Required ground) for Openreach (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

09/00515/FUL 3 And 5 Jefferson Close, Lancaster Application Permitted Retrospective application for alterations to front dormers for Ms H Channon (Castle Ward)

09/00512/LB Mousekill Barn, Kellet Road, Over Kellet Application Permitted Listed building consent for erection of detached double garage and installation of 3 roof windows for Ms Ruth Thomas (Kellet Ward)

09/00528/ADV 137 - 141 Lancaster Road, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of 1 no. internally illuminated free standing double sided display unit for Primesight Ltd (Poulton Ward)

09/00531/FUL 53 Anstable Road, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of conservatory to rear for Mr K Hill (Torrisholme Ward)

09/00539/FUL 16 Cove Drive, Silverdale, Carnforth Application Permitted Erection of a two storey side extension for Mr And Mrs Sharpe (Silverdale Ward)

09/00550/FUL Seamore, Moneyclose Lane, Heysham Application Permitted Erection of a sun lounge to front for Mr J Billington (Overton Ward)

09/00563/AD Field 8100, Silverdale Road, Yealand Redmayne Prior Approval Not Erection of storage building in connection with forestry Required for Mr N Crowe (Silverdale Ward)

09/00571/AD Blackwood End Farm, Bay Horse Road, Quernmore Prior Approval Not Erection of an agricultural building for Mr Peter Whitaker Required (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

09/00620/CPA Sandylands County Primary School, Hampton Road, No Objections Heysham Redevelopment of existing playground to include new surfaces, play structures, internal fencing and soft landscaping for Lancashire County Council (Heysham North Ward)