Public Document Pack
Committee: PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS REGULATORY COMMITTEE
Date: MONDAY, 19TH DECEMBER 2005
Venue: MORECAMBE TOWN HALL
Time: 10.30 A.M.
A G E N D A
1 Apologies for Absence.
2 Minutes of the Meeting held on 14th November 2005 (circulated separately).
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.
5 A5 05/01276/FUL Ridgway Park, Lindeth Road, Silverdale (Pages 1 - 6) Silverdale Ward
Erection of single-storey modular building, replacing existing portakabins for Ridgeway Children’s Services Ltd
6 A6 05/01156/CU 113 White Lund Road, Morecambe, Westgate (Pages 7 - 10) Lancashire Ward
Change of use of land adjacent to site 8 park homes for gypsy residential accommodation for Mr D Walsh
7 A7 05/01148/FUL 15 Knowlys Drive, Heysham, Heysham (Pages 11 - Morecambe Central 16) Ward
Application to retain windows and door in southern elevation, and erection of screen wall and fence, and access for disabled people for Mr and Mrs H G Maskrey
8 A8 05/00823/FUL Waterslack Garden Centre, Silverdale (Pages 17 - Waterslack Road, Silverdale Ward 20)
Retrospective application for alterations to cafe and erection of till store cabin plus the erection of new toilet cabin, dry goods store cabin and craft shop cabin for Mr Steve Sowery
9 A9 04/01327/FUL Land Between Carlow Wood And, Upper Lune (Pages 21 - Woodman Lane, Burrow With Valley Ward 30) Burrow
Retrospective application for the erection of two poultry breeder houses and egg storage building and ancillary hardstanding and landscaping areas for Mayfield Chicks Ltd
10 A10 05/00734/OUT Land Adjacent Kellet Road Industrial Carnforth (Pages 31 - Estate, Kellet Road, Carnforth Ward 36)
Outline application for the formation of Carnforth Business Park - provision of mixed use scheme falling within classes B1, B2 and B8 for Peterloo Estates Ltd
11 A11 05/01295/FUL Moorcock Hall, Claughton Moor, Lower Lune (Pages 37 - Lancaster Valley Ward 42)
Reconstruction of derelict farmhouse to provide a tied agricultural dwelling and associated store/workshop for Natfarms Ltd
12 A12 05/01100/FUL Leighton Hall Home Farm, Leighton Silverdale (Pages 43 - Park, Leighton Ward 54)
Erection of new buildings and conversion of existing agricultural buildings, extension to keepers cottage, creation of car parking and auxiliary facilities for rural workspace development for Rural Business Centres Ltd
13 A13 05/01101/LB Leighton Hall Home Farm, Leighton Silverdale (Pages 55 - Park, Leighton Ward 56)
Listed Building consent for renovation, restoration and re-use for rural workshop for Rural Business Centres Ltd
14 A14 05/01384/CU Halton Post Office, 83 High Road, Halton-with- (Pages 57 - Halton Aughton 60) Ward
Change of Use - Post Office/Shop to Living Accommodation for Mr K Wilkinson & Mr F Cowper
15 A15 05/01291/FUL TA Centre, Caton Road, Lancaster Bulk Ward (Pages 61 - 64)
Erection of one 22.5 mini macro column with six antennae together with equipment cabinets at the base of pole with 2.1m fence around site 02 (UK) Ltd
16 A16 05/01417/FUL Skerton Community Centre, King Skerton (Pages 65 - George's Playing Field, Slyne Road East Ward 68)
Erection of a glazed porch and internal alterations to create new WC facilities, training rooms and an external play area for Lou Andrews
17 A17 05/01363/FUL 63 North Road, Lancaster, Duke's (Pages 69 - Lancashire Ward 72)
Application to vary condition 5 of permission 99/00879/FUL to allow extension of opening hours for J D Wetherspoon
18 A18 05/01159/OUT Bay Horse Garage, Abbeystead Ellel Ward (Pages 73 - Lane, Dolphinholme 74)
Outline Application for residential development for M Rogerson
19 A19 05/01290/FUL Lancaster University, Bailrigg, University (Pages 75 - Lancaster Ward 76)
Change of use of Bowland North from part office, part accommodation to fully office and erection of 3 single storey extensions for Mr John Pye
20 A20 05/01038/CU Morecambe Community Education Poulton (Pages 77 - Centre, Poulton Road, Morecambe Ward 82)
Change of use and conversion of former education centre to 22 apartments and demolition of annexe building to create car parking area for Glenroyd Developments
21 A21 05/01204/LB Morecambe Community Education Poulton (Pages 83 - Centre, Poulton Road, Morecambe Ward 84)
Listed Building Consent for conversion to 22 apartments and installation of one new window for Glenroyd Developments
22 A22 05/01432/OUT Halton Mill, Mill Lane, Halton Halton-with- (Pages 85 - Aughton 88) Ward
Renewal of application 00/00920/OUT for proposed redevelopment including demolition of existing mill, erect houses, industrial units, construct new access and provision of associated open space and landscaping for Time and Tide Properties Ltd
23 A23 05/01305/FUL Halton Mill, Mill Lane, Halton Halton-with- (Pages 89 - Aughton 90) Ward
Amendments to elevations to housing scheme approved as 04/01301/REM for Time and Tide Homes
24 Background (Pages 91 - 92)
25 Delegated List (Pages 93 - 102)
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
(i) Membership
Councillors Roger Sherlock (Chairman), Eileen Blamire (Vice-Chairman), Evelyn Ashworth, Ken Brown, Abbott Bryning, Keith Budden, Anne Chapman, Susie Charles, Chris Coates, Sheila Denwood, John Gilbert, Mike Greenall, Helen Helme, Jean Jones, Judith Jones, David Kerr, Pat Quinton, Joseph Ravetz, Sylvia Rogerson and Paul Woodruff
(ii) Substitute Membership
Councillors James Airey, Jon Barry, Maggie Chadwick, Janice Hanson, Emily Heath, Tony Johnson, Geoff Knight, Joyce Pritchard, Robert Redfern and Alex Stone
(iii) Queries regarding this Agenda
Please contact Jane Glenton, Administration 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, LANCASTER LA1 1 PJ
Published on Wednesday. 7th December 2005 This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 5
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
5 December 2005 05/01276/FUL A 5 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
ERECTION OF SINGLE-STOREY RIDGWAY PARK MODULAR BUILDING, REPLACING LINDETH ROAD EXISTING PORTAKABINS SILVERDALE CARNFORTH LANCASHIRE LA5 0UA APPLICANT: AGENT:
Ridgeway Childrens Services Ltd Mrs G Llewellyn Ridgway Park Lindeth Road Silverdale Carnforth Lancashire LA5 0UA
REASON FOR DELAY
Awaiting consultation replies and additional information in support of the application.
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Silverdale Parish Council - No objections.
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Arnside/Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways – No objection. Arnside/Silverdale AONB Executive - The purpose of designating an AONB is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. The buildings proposed here are temporary, to fulfil a short term need. If the school requires extra classrooms a permanent solution should be sought. In this instance the house and garden are of significant merit and they suggest that a design brief, to ensure that any new buildings blend in with the existing house, would be useful.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
Four letters from neighbours express concern that the proposal could lead to an increase in the size of the school and consequently more traffic movements to and from the site. It is pointed out that the access road is a narrow lane and unsuitable for heavy traffic. One of the writers expresses concern that damage may be caused to boundary walls by large vehicles.
Any other representations received will be reported orally at Committee. Page 2
REPORT
Ridgway Park is a special school catering for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. It occupies premises on the south side of Silverdale, which were previously used as a Civil Service training centre.
In August 2001 consent was granted for a group of temporary buildings within the former kitchen garden of the house on the site. The intention was that they would provide short term accommodation while proposals for permanent buildings suitable for school use were being prepared.
Four detailed proposals for permanent buildings within the site were submitted in August 2002. Three of them were approved; the fourth one was refused, but it was indicated that a modified version of the proposal was likely to be considered more sympathetically. However the amended scheme was not submitted and the accommodation approved has never been built. Instead, as the consent for the present temporary buildings is about to expire, the applicants have put forward proposals for a different type of temporary accommodation.
The total floorspace provided would be 380 sq metres, and would consist of:-
- Four classrooms - Three learning support rooms - Staff room - Common room - Head Teacher's office - Hall/central circulation area
Because of the nature of the school's client group the classrooms are considerably smaller than are usual in mainstream education.
The building proposed (to be assembled as a single composite unit) is of a type produced by a specialist manufacturer (Elliotts) whose mobile classroom units are widely used by education authorities. They are more suited to the purposes of the school than the portable units currently on the site. The external panels would be finished in two shades of green.
However, the building is still temporary rather than permanent accommodation. The application forms indicate that the school would like permission for five years. Following an approach to the school, the headteacher has sent a letter setting out the reasons for the present application. A copy of it appears at the end of this report. It appears from this that the reason they have not provided any permanent accommodation is uncertainty about the long term use of the site. The Head Teacher also indicates that at present the school provides places for 28 children (the maximum permitted by DES at present, though currently there are only 17 on roll) and that it employs 34 staff.
Policy E3 of the Lancaster District Local Plan requires that development within and adjacent to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be of an appropriate scale and use materials appropriate to the area.
A temporary building cannot be regarded as ideal in this context. However it is evident from the information provided by the headteacher that the school may not remain in Silverdale in the long term. The area involved in the present application is well hidden from public views, even from the access road within the school site, because of the walls surrounding the former kitchen garden.
It is therefore recommended that a five year limited period consent should be granted. Page 3
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IMPLICATIONS
The application has to be considered in relation to three sections of the Act: Article 8 (Privacy/Family Life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property), and Article 2 of the First Protocol (Education). The proposal involves a special school for children whose needs have not been met by mainstream education, so the third of these is particularly important. Nonetheless, there do not appear to be any special issues arising from the proposal which override the responsibility of the City Council to determine planning applications in the interests of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to conditions as follows:
1. Temporary consent - to expire 31 December 2010 2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans 3. No more than 28 children to be accommodated at any one time
Page 4
This page is intentionally left blank Page 5 Page 6
This page is intentionally left blank Page 7 Agenda Item 6
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
26 October 2005 05/01156/CU A 6 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
CHANGE OF USE OF LAND ADJACENT 113 WHITE LUND ROAD TO SITE 8 PARK HOMES FOR GYPSY MORECAMBE RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION LANCASHIRE LA3 3DX APPLICANT: AGENT:
Mr D Walsh Mr. H.R. Wheatman 113 White Lund Road Heaton With Oxcliffe Morecambe Lancashire
REASON FOR DELAY
Awaiting additional information in support of the proposal, and consultation replies.
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Heaton-with-Oxcliffe Parish Council - Object to the proposal, on the grounds that the site entrance will be extremely dangerous on account of it being so close to the White Lund Road/Oxcliffe Road junction. There are already two entrances to no. 113, one on to each of these two roads. The bend in the road is notoriously dangerous. They are concerned that the site layout shown would result in parking on Oxcliffe Road.
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Within the urban area defined in the Lancaster District Local Plan - no specific proposals affecting the site.
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - Asks for refusal, on the basis that the number of vehicle movements involved would be dangerous so close to the Oxcliffe Road/White Lund Road/Mellishaw Lane junction. It is noted that the applicant is willing to close off an existing domestic access but this is insufficient to overcome the problems. Eight caravans would generate over 60 new vehicle movements a day and this is considered unacceptable. Engineering Services - The internal layout appears to provide two off street parking spaces for each plot. This advice is given on the basis that the site is to be used by static caravans only, with no towed vans being involved. On drainage, it is pointed out that septic tanks drainage is not suitable for this location. Uncontrolled surface water discharges into watercourses will not be permitted. The maximum rate of discharge should be the equivalent of the run off from undeveloped land. If permission is granted, a perimeter drainage scheme will be needed.
Page 8
Environmental Health - Recommend a construction hours condition, in view of the dwellings in the vicinity. Environment Agency - Object to the proposal, unless a satisfactory Flood Risk assessment can be provided (this has now been submitted).
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
Eight letters of have been received from people living in the area. They object to the proposal on the following grounds:-
- The site will not be used to provide bona fide gypsy accommodation - Increased traffic in the area - Vehicular access to this section of Mellishaw Lane is hazardous - Enough gypsy accommodation in the area already - Possibility of disorderly behaviour by residents of the site - Effect on property values (this is not a planning consideration)
Any further observations received will be reported orally at Committee.
REPORT
This site is immediately to the west of the house at 113 White Lund Road, on the north side of Oxcliffe Road. It is currently vacant, although it has been used in the past without planning permission for the storage of skips. There is an existing vehicular access on to Oxcliffe Road, and a brick wall along the site frontage.
The land is within an area considered to be at risk from flooding but it is evident that it has been tipped to increase its level, probably relatively recently. No permission has been sought or granted for this and it appears that the operations involved were unauthorised; as a result there is no record of what material has been used for the purpose.
The application has been submitted on the basis that it is for use by gypsies. However the submitted plans show a group of eight dwellings of the "park home" type. There is space between them which could be used for car parking but no provision has been made for the parking of touring caravans.
The issue of new gypsy accommodation is addressed in policy H16 of the Lancaster District Local Plan. This states that proposals for the establishment or extension of gypsy sites will only be permitted where the applicant can prove that:-
- The proposal meets a genuine need for gypsy accommodation which cannot be met on an existing or approved site - The site is suitable for the proposed use and can provide an acceptable living environment - The proposal is compatible with neighbouring uses, and - The site is located in or adjacent to an existing settlement and is within reasonable distance of local services and schools.
Another application for gypsy accommodation on the site was submitted earlier this year on behalf of Mr Welch, but by a different agent. There were various problems with it which led to it being withdrawn. The intention was that a new proposal would be submitted once the practical difficulties to do with access and site drainage had been addressed. Unfortunately the applicant, who is now using a different agent, has not taken account of all the advice which was given at that time. He was, in particular, advised that in order to reduce the traffic hazard on Oxcliffe Road, it would be prudent to close one of the existing accesses off but this has not been shown. The applicant has indicated that in principle he is willing to do this but no amended plan has been submitted in support of the application.
Page 9
It will be seen that even with the access being closed off, the County as highway authority objects to the proposal on highway safety grounds, because of the number of traffic movements which would be introduced close to the Oxcliffe Road/White Lund Road/Mellishaw Lane junction. This is awkwardly sited on the crest of a hill, with poor visibility. The land in the applicant's control does not include any which could be used to make it safer.
Furthermore the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a need for further accommodation of this type, and on this scale, in this location.
It is therefore recommended that permission should be refused.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IMPLICATIONS
This application has to be considered in relation to two sections of the Human Rights Act: Article 8 (privacy/family life), and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). The present proposal has been submitted on the basis that it is to provide accommodation for gypsies, who frequently have problems finding sites suitable for their requirements. In this context the requirements of Article 8 are of particular importance. Despite this, there are no issues arising from the proposal which appear to be of such significance as 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-
1. Detrimental to highway safety - additional traffic movements close to a dangerous road junction 2. Contrary to policy H16 of the Lancaster District Local Plan – insufficient evidence that there is a need for further accommodation of this type and scale in this location Page 10
This page is intentionally left blank Page 11 Agenda Item 7
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
25 October 2005 05/01148/FUL A 7 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
APPLICATION TO RETAIN WINDOWS 15 KNOWLYS DRIVE AND DOOR IN SOUTHERN ELEVATION, HEYSHAM AND ERECTION OF SCREEN WALL AND MORECAMBE FENCE, AND ACCESS FOR DISABLED LANCASHIRE PEOPLE LA3 2PD
APPLICANT: AGENT:
Mr and Mrs H G Maskrey Ian J. Potts Associates 11-15 Knowlys Drive Heysham Morecambe Lancashire LA3 2PD
REASON FOR DELAY
Awaiting amended plans
PARISH NOTIFICATION
None to date, any comments will be reported to Committee.
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Lancaster District Local Plan - No specific allocation
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
Chief Engineer - No objections
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
To date, nine letters of objection have been received from local residents, the main grounds for objection include: -
- Undermines the reasons for prosecution for non-compliance - Appears to be developing the site for two or three dwellings - Inappropriate within the street scene and visually intrusive - Queries the details of the plans that appear to still include a balcony to the rear - Concerns over the general untidiness of the site and the existing screen trellis along the Knowlys road frontage - Allowing the retention of the doors and windows will condone the unauthorised actions of the applicant - Questions the need for two access points into the dwelling as only one should be needed Page 12
REPORT
This application was deferred from the previous Committee meeting held on 14 November 2005 to enable a site visit to be undertaken by the members of the Planning Committee.
Background
Members considered an earlier application in respect of this site under 05/00559/FUL on 27 June 2005. The application sought to retain windows and a door to the southern elevation in addition to the construction of a screen wall and fence, disabled access and balcony. The application was subsequently refused for the following reason: -
1. Development of the site in the manner proposed would adversely affect the amenities of nearby residential properties by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy. Furthermore, the introduction of a hard landscaped boundary and the omission of a hedgerow and tree planting scheme will result in the loss of a satisfactory screen to the side elevation of the dwelling and a reduction in the aesthetics of the street scene. As such the proposed development is contrary to Policy H19 and SPG 12 - Residential Design Guide of the Lancaster District Local Plan.
The Present Proposal
The present application again seeks consent for a number of distinct elements some of which are retrospective others relate to proposed development. They are as follows: - a. Retrospective consent for the retention of an access door and windows to the Knowlys Road elevation. b. Modification of the approved boundary arrangement to Knowlys Road with the provision of a low artificial stone wall to the Knowlys Road frontage and the provision of a landscaping scheme behind the wall which includes the provision of a beech hedgerow together with substantial tree planting. c. Construction of an access ramp leading from the public footpath into the retained access door at first floor level of the dwelling to improve access arrangements for the disabled.
The main differences between the previous refused scheme under 05/00559/FUL and the present scheme are (a) the omission of the extensive rear balcony, (b) the improvement of the detailing of the boundary wall to the Knowlys Road frontage and (c) the development of an improved landscaping scheme which incorporates a greater number of trees and shrubs over a greater frontage
Site and its Surroundings
This application site is located at the southern end of Knowlys Drive, adjacent to Knowlys Road, Heysham. The site comprises of a semi-detached property, No. 11 Knowlys Drive and the side garden area within which a separate detached dwelling is under construction. The dwelling is a two storey development with additional accommodation within the roof space. Immediately to the south of the site lies Knowlys Road, a local distributor road serving Heysham village centre and a wider residential area. Knowlys Road sits at a higher level (approx 2.2m) than the ground level of the application site which is presently accessed via a Knowlys Drive. A privately maintained, public footpath links the two roads and runs diagonally along the eastern boundary of the application site. Page 13
Planning History
The site has a long and complex history relating to the development of the site as a whole and the erection of a detached dwelling to the side garden of No. 11 Knowlys Drive in particular. Outline planning consent was gained under 96/00446 and a Reserved Matters approval followed under 96/01110/REM for a detached dwelling.
Work commenced on the site early in 1998, however it became apparent that the development under construction was not that previously approved as a subsequent extension to his existing property interfered with the siting of the approved dwelling. The applicant's failure to either stop work or seek consent for the modifications resulted in an enforcement notice being served in March 1998. The applicant appealed against this notice and a Planning Inspector subsequently found in favour of the City Council and upheld the notice.
A further application was subsequently granted under 02/01179/FUL to revise the design of the dwelling to accommodate the extensions to number 11. Work progressed on the construction of the approved dwelling over the following years. Again, however, it became apparent that the ongoing works did not accord with the approved plans and the applicant’s failure to either construct the development in accordance with the approved plans or seek to regularise the unauthorised works lead to a Breach of Condition Notice being served in September 2004. The applicant failed to address the demands of the Notice and was subsequently prosecuted in February 2005 for failing to comply with the Breach of Condition Notice.
As outlined earlier in the report application 05/00559/FUL was submitted in an attempt to regularise unauthorised work and was refused in June 2005.
Planning Policy
The application site is located within an area of existing residential properties and as such the principle of residential use is not in question. The planning policy issues centre around the suitability of development of this small infill site in respect of the impact upon neighbouring residential properties and the wider street scene. It is considered that the relevant policies are H19 (Development of Small Sites in Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth) and the design guidance contained within SPG 12 Residential Design Guide.
POLICY H19 reads: -
IN LANCASTER, MORECAMBE, HEYSHAM AND CARNFORTH, NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN EXISTING HOUSING AREAS WILL BE PERMITTED WHICH;
WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF GREEN SPACE OR OTHER AREAS OF LOCALLY IMPORTANT OPEN SPACE;
WOULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE AMENITIES OF NEARBY RESIDENTS;
PROVIDES A HIGH STANDARD OF AMENITY;
MAKES ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE AND WASTE WATER, AND
MAKES SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS FOR ACCESS, SERVICING AND CYCLE AND CAR PARKING.
Page 14
In addition, guidance contained within SPG 12 Residential Design Guide and in particular paragraphs 2.13, 2.17 and 5.8 provides direction in respect of landscaping and protection of privacy.
Comments
The original design concept of the planning proposal to develop the land for an additional dwelling included the provision of a substantial planting scheme along the boundary with Knowlys Road. The scheme comprised the provision of a hedgerow with individual specimen trees contained within it. This form of design was considered to be critical to the original approval. The development of the site initially resulted in the loss of a mature belt of trees and shrubs and the provision of a replacement planting scheme was an essential element of the approved scheme.
The landscaping scheme was considered necessary as the new dwelling was to be sited close to Knowlys Road and its impact needed to be softened within the street scene, in addition, it was considered that the soft landscape approach to the design visually help to link this road frontage to the adjoining open land known as Rayners field.
The value of the landscaping was considered at the original Public Inquiry relating to the unauthorised development of the site in 1998. The Planning Inspectorate in reaching the decision to dismiss the appeal in part concluded that the building could not be located closer to Knowlys Road than the approved scheme as it would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and further sighted the value of the landscaping scheme in softening the impact of the new dwelling when viewed from Knowlys Road.
In addition, the recent Breach of Condition Notice was served upon the applicant as it was considered that: -
The introduction of windows and a door way would prevent the implementation of the comprehensive landscaping and screening proposals which are considered essential to satisfactorily screen the substantial side elevation and to maintain the aesthetics of the street scene.
This current proposal has been developed with the applicant’s agent following the refusal of the previous application in June 2005. The redesigned scheme has attempted to address the concerns raised within the earlier committee report and the subsequent reasons for refusal. In particular, the removal of the existing unsightly screen trellis, the omission of the balcony, the provision of a low boundary wall to Knowlys Road and the development of a landscaping scheme which includes the provision of a hedgerow to the rear of the new wall and substantial tree planting including the provision of 10 specimen trees and the provision of an area of beech trees alongside the new ramped access.
The agent has re-confirmed that his client wishes to develop a second access to the site as he desires to make the dwelling as accessible as possible and considers that the proposed ramped access will not be obtrusive and will be further screened as the proposed landscaping develops. The desire to provide an accessible dwelling, which exceeds the minimal demands of the Building Regulations, is a laudable approach and in principle should be encouraged.
Conclusion
The submitted scheme is considered to demonstrate that an acceptable boundary/landscaping scheme can be developed alongside Knowlys Drive that will allow the retention of the door and windows whilst providing sufficient `softening’ of the dwelling when viewed in the context of the wider street scene. Subject to appropriate conditions to ensure the removal of the trellis fencing and the provision/implementation of the boundary treatment and landscaping, the application should be supported.
Page 15
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IMPLICATIONS
This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED with the following conditions: -
1. Development to be built in accordance with the approved plans. 2. Amended plans dated 19 October 2005. 3. Amended landscaping plan dated 25 October 2005. 4. Trellis/screen fencing to be removed and the boundary wall and landscaping scheme to be implemented within 4 months. 5. Precise detail of the design and external finish to the `Juliet’ balcony to be submitted and approved. 6. Precise detail of the access ramp construction including external finishes to be submitted and approved. Page 16
This page is intentionally left blank Page 17 Agenda Item 8
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
8 August 2005 05/00823/FUL A 8 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR WATERSLACK GARDEN CENTRE ALTERATIONS TO CAFE AND ERECTION WATERSLACK ROAD OF TILL STORE CABIN PLUS THE SILVERDALE ERECTION OF NEW TOILET CABIN, DRY CARNFORTH GOODS STORE CABIN AND CRAFT SHOP LANCASHIRE CABIN
APPLICANT: AGENT:
Mr Steve Sowery Ben Cunliffe Waterslack Garden Centre Silverdale Lancashire LA5 0UH
REASON FOR DELAY
Deferred by Committee to allow problems with the existing Section 106 Agreement to be resolved (see report below)
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Silverdale Parish Council - Originally indicated that they had no objections to the present proposal. However they have now drawn attention to their objection to the earlier application and their concern about the intensification of the garden centre use. Also concerned over ongoing problems with the disposal of surface and foul water from the site, would like the problems resolved before granting retrospective permission
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Arnside/Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - No highway observations on this proposal Environmental Health - The applicant claims that the dormer extension to the café building was to meet their requirements. He was advised not to make use of the part of the kitchen which had too low a ceiling to allow staff to stand up in it Environment Agency - No development should take place until a scheme for foul and surface water drainage has been agreed Network Rail - No comments further to those on the previous application Arnside/Silverdale AONB Trust - Concerned to point out that AONB visitor numbers quoted by the applicant represent the maximum that the area might have to accommodate. They do not represent a target and it will not be possible to cater for this level of growth if the extra visitors all come by car Page 18
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
Letters have been received from the occupiers of three houses near the site. They object on the following grounds:-
- The owners of the site have ignored the terms of their existing consent - Evening events have been held on the site, in contravention of the condition restricting its opening hours - The quality of the buildings on the site is poor, and unworthy of the AONB - Some of the buildings offered for sale are residential chalets, rather than bona fide garden buildings - Excessive range of retail activities on the site (one of them alleges that the goods sold include radios and pet food) - Traffic and parking problems - The car parking arrangements detract from the character of the area - Hazards associated with the use of a fork lift truck - Inadequate toilet facilities for people using the tea room - Problems with the storage of rubbish awaiting collection
One of the objectors asks that if planning permission is granted it should be on the basis of suitably worded conditions to ensure that access to the houses adjoining the site is not impeded, that no additional car parks are provided, that deliveries take place only between 9:00am and 1:00pm, and that the tea room should not be allowed to open in the evening.
Councillor Fishwick has indicated her concern about the proposal, and draws attention to the problems experienced by neighbours.
The National Trust have drawn attention to their interest in part of the garden centre site (see report below).
REPORT
A decision on this proposal was deferred at the Committee meeting on 14 November, to allow Members an opportunity to visit the site.
The application was originally reported to the meeting on 22 August, but no decision was reached as problems had come to light with the existing Section 106 Agreement covering sales from the premises. The agreement as signed stated that the whole of the site was owned by the applicant and his company, Palmcity. It now transpires that part of the land involved is leased from the National Trust (the terms of the original lease prevented the land concerned being used for commercial purposes, but that is a matter between the Trust and their tenants and does not affect the status of the planning permission). There were also some unresolved questions about the development carried out on the site.
The original Section 106 Agreement has now been modified to take account of the National Trust's interest and it is therefore appropriate for the City Council to determine the current application.
The Waterslack garden centre, on the north side of Silverdale, is a long established one. However, the intensity of use and the range of goods sold have both increased since the business was acquired by its present owner. Page 19
An application for various alterations, including the conversion of part of the original dwelling to a shop and the construction of a new café, were approved by your Committee in April last year (application 04/00267). However it became apparent subsequent to this that various works had been carried out which did not come within the scope of the existing planning permissions and could not be regarded as ancillary to the main use of the site. In particular, alterations had been carried out to the tea room which included the enlargement of part of it, and several small buildings were being used as sales units rather than displayed as garden sheds or summerhouses for sale in their own right.
Complaints received from local residents about the unauthorised works were taken up with the site operators. The present application has been submitted retrospectively to cover both these and also some additional items, so the works covered by it are as follows:
1. A shed at the site entrance to accommodate a sales point; this is already erected and in use, but without a canopy over the front shown on the drawings. 2. A "dry goods" display area, taking the form of a pair of chalets. One of these is already in position; the other would replace a smaller shed which is already in use. 3. A chalet used for the display of craft goods, considerably larger than the cabin currently on the site. 4. Alterations to the tea room building, which have already been carried out.
As with the previous application, the following policies in the Lancaster District Local Plan need to be considered:-
- E3, which states that development within or adjoining the Arnside/Silverdale AONB should respect its character - S1, which requires that new retail development other than small local shops should be located within established shopping centres.
Account should also be taken of the Arnside/Silverdale Village Plan which is not adopted as planning policy, but is a "material consideration" in considering the proposal. It recognises that there is a need to diversify employment opportunities within the area but sees this in terms of marketing "locally produced sustainable goods".
The cabin at the site entrance backs on to the site boundary with one of the adjoining houses (Orchard Cottage). However as it is largely concealed from view by a wooden fence, and there is an outbuilding at the corresponding end of Orchard Cottage, it cannot be regarded as having an unacceptable impact on its amenities.
Of the sales chalets at the top end of the site one is already in position; the other is intended to replace a smaller unit, currently used for the sale of garden equipment, which does not have permission for this purpose.
The "arts and craft centre" at the bottom end, backing on to the railway line, would in contrast be a completely new structure, which has not been constructed but would replace the present chalet type building currently used for this purpose. The sales of craft goods on the site were in some ways the most controversial part of the earlier application as some of the goods offered for sale - particularly imported furniture - did not obviously fall within the range of goods normally associated with a garden centre.
The applicant claims that the unauthorised alterations to the tea room were undertaken in order to meet the requirements of Environmental Health. The resulting building is not as attractive as the one envisaged on the earlier application, which was intended to replace it, but its impact on the surrounding area and on the AONB generally is minimal. Page 20
He has also responded in some detail to the points made in letters of objection. He argues that his business is now one of the largest employers in Silverdale, providing jobs for 32 people of whom 28 live within five miles of the site. He denies that it is his intention to turn the centre into a general retail operation, and denies that he has ever sold radios (as alleged by one of the objectors) but points out that garden centres have to offer a range of goods in order to attract customers during the winter months. He says that his intention is to carry out the rebuilding programme authorised by the last planning permission in stages, finishing with the new cafe building in 2007/2008.
As with the previous application it is clear that the intensive way in which the site is now operated has given rise to tensions with people living nearby. On the other hand it has to be recognised that the use is an established one. It is not possible, and it would not be reasonable, to prevent it from functioning as a bona fide garden centre. Having a range of small garden buildings on display within the site is part of that activity. So is selling a limited amount of locally produced food as a "farm shop" operation; this is specifically mentioned in the Section 106 Agreement. On the other hand the location is not an appropriate one for sales of unrelated goods. In particular, evidence has been provided that on several occasions the tearoom has operated outside the hours authorised by the last consent. It is evident that a few of the items on sale fall outside the scope of the Section 106 Agreement. Most breaches are of a minor nature, but the applicant is clearly selling a significant amount of dog food which is not appropriate or reasonable for a use of this nature. In addition many of the sales operations are taking place on parts of the site not envisaged in the agreement.
It is recommended that permission should be granted. However, as the present arrangement is a temporary one, pending the full implementation of the consent granted last year, consent should be for a three year period only. It will be necessary to revise the Section 106 Agreement to accommodate the changes in the way parts of the site are being used. In addition, a letter should be sent to the applicant with the decision notice emphasising the importance of abiding by the terms of the agreement which controls the range of goods which can be sold.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IMPLICATIONS
This application has to be considered in relation to two sections of the Human Rights Act: Article 8 (privacy/family life), and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). There are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to amendments to the existing Section 106 Agreement as detailed in the report, and conditions as listed below, with a letter to be sent to the applicant emphasising the importance of the restrictions on the range of goods:-
1. Temporary consent – to expire 31 December 2008. 2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Details of foul and surface water drainage arrangements to be agreed and installed within six months of consent. 4. Unauthorised sales units to be removed within six months of the date of this consent. 5. Range of goods to be restricted as in existing Section 106 Agreement. 6. Premises, including the tea room, not be open outside 9:00 - 18:00 hours. 7. Management arrangements for the car park to be agreed with the local planning authority within six months of the date of consent being granted.
Page 21 Agenda Item 9
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
25 November 2004 04/01327/FUL A 9 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR LAND BETWEEN CARLOW WOOD AND THE ERECTION OF TWO POULTRY WOODMAN LANE BREEDER HOUSES AND EGG STORAGE BURROW WITH BURROW BUILDING AND ANCILLARY LANCASHIRE HARDSTANDING AND LANDSCAPING AREAS
APPLICANT: AGENT:
Mayfield Chicks Ltd David Nurse Building Consultant 21 Union Street Ramsbottom Lancashire BL0 9AN
REASON FOR DELAY
Ongoing discussions with the applicant and investigation of a legal challenge to the requirement for planning permission.
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Burrow with Burrow Parish Council have submitted four letters in response to the original plans and a number of amendments on this retrospective planning application. They remain concerned regarding the following issues: -
• The delay in reaching a decision • Increased odour and nuisance from flies • Increased noise • Excessive traffic • Deficiencies in existing landscaping and colour of the roofs
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
The site is designated as a Countryside Area within the Lancaster District Local Plan.
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health Services - The latest noise monitoring exercise should have been undertaken during late evening hours, when background noise is low. This may explain why plant noise could not be heard at the residential property site boundary. Some results may therefore be erroneous, including statistics that show a smaller number of poultry houses having lower LAeq levels than some combined poultry houses.
Page 22
There is tonal noise breakout from within the plant that should be treated. If tonal noise arises from the houses in question (numbers 3 and 4) then measures for reduction should be recommended.
However a subsequent noise monitoring exercise undertaken by Environmental Health Officers is referred to within the report and concludes that noise emanating from within the site is audible when the older poultry houses are operational, but not when the unauthorised houses are operating alone.
With regards to the issue of odour the surveying of ammonia levels is reasonable. However there is still a lack of information in the report that raise several issues. Engineering Services - No objections, although the standard sewerage condition would be required on any approval. County Highways - Woodman Lane is in a fairly good condition, although some grass verges have been run over by vehicles. The County Council does not consider a weight restriction on this road to be appropriate, and in any case a Traffic Regulation Order would only prohibit through traffic, and existing users would be exempt from any such Order. Generally there are concerns about an increase in traffic but it would be difficult to sustain a highway objection. An improvement to sightlines would be preferable.
Delivery vehicles appear to use the A683 from Burrow to avoid Overtown and it may be worth ensuring that this arrangement continues. United Utilities - No objections, although the site is within the sensitive River Eden Catchment Area. Consequently any soakaways or private treatment plant must be approved by the Environment Agency. Environment Agency - No further comment to make regarding this application. Their initial comments on this retrospective submission indicate that the developer will need to make an application to the Environment Agency because it involves a process for integrated pollution control. The site requires an IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) permit for intensive livestock, which has been submitted. Until the site has IPPC accreditation the responsibility for odour and nuisance lies with the Local Authority. County Land Agent - No response received.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
At the time of compiling this report, 30 letters of objection from 13 different local residents had been received. Any further observations will be verbally reported. On many of the letters the resident(s) ask that previous objections to the development are taken into account. The objections can be summarised as follows: -
• The general environmental impact of the use and the inappropriate siting of the complex; • Increase in traffic, particularly HGV’s, and especially through Overtown Village and via the inadequate road network; • Increase in odour and associated impacts of flies and vermin; • Dust being discharged into the atmosphere; • Increases in noise pollution • Annual cleaning of sheds increases noise and odour problems and results in the dumping of chicken litter; • Lack of appropriate technical studies into nuisances or unconvincing data; • Odour study investigates ammonia only; • Possible switch to broiler production in the future; • Damage to hedges and grass verges; • The retrospective nature of the application and the delay in reaching a decision; • The firm are trading without an IPPC licence; • Lack of sufficient screening for the site; • Lack of local employment opportunities at the complex; • Muggy weather conditions lead to air column drifting over Overtown.
Page 23
REPORT
Site History and the Surrounding Landscape
The Mayfield Chicks Complex is sited on the western outskirts of the hamlet of Overtown within the Burrow with Burrow parish. A belt of agricultural land separates the business from the settlement and land remains undeveloped on all remaining sides.
The history of the site is complex and is repeated in this report for the purposes of clarity.
Mayfield Chicks acquired the site in 1985 following the disposal of surplus farmland from a nearby farm and established an agricultural unit on the land. They submitted a planning application later that year for two large industrial-type units to accommodate breeder houses. This was controversial at the time but following extensive interpretation against national trends it was concluded that the development fell within the definition of agricultural, rather than industrial use.
The Planning Committee of the time refused the application. Consideration was given as to whether an Article 4 Direction should be imposed on the land to remove the agricultural permitted development tolerances, but Committee decided against this, as they were wary of the possible financial compensation claims that might ensue.
Rather than appeal the Council’s decision the company opted to erect the units under the agricultural permitted development tolerances, which applied at the time. This amounted to 5000 sq. ft of agricultural construction permitted every two years. On this basis they built two units at opposite ends of the site.
In 1991 the company made a further application for three units which were to be sited between the two already constructed. Again this was the subject of extensive debate and a site visit by Committee. As the company would have been allowed to erect these units incrementally under the permitted development rights, the Committee eventually granted consent subject to conditions to improve landscaping and screening at the site, and a planning agreement requiring that the Chief Planning Officer’s consent would be required for any further building on the land.
Extensive landscaping to the south was undertaken but in the event the company only erected one of the units. When the current development commenced the company maintained that they were completing the 1991 approval. However the units are of a different design and location to those previously approved and the Local Planning Authority concluded that a new planning application was necessary. Additionally, the development comprises of three new buildings rather than the two referred to in the 1991 consent.
The farm has operated from its current site for some considerable time and has gradually intensified during the last fifteen years. Ancillary work, such as the provision of a hardstanding area around the perimeter of the site and the creation of a landscaped bund are also applied for as part of this application. These matters were not opposed during consideration of the previous refusal.
Work commenced on all three of these buildings in October 2003, and that the first of these buildings became fully operational by January 2004. Following an enforcement investigation, it transpired that no planning application has been submitted for the buildings and consequently they remain unauthorised.
The first retrospective application was submitted in February 2004 to retain two poultry breeder houses, an egg storage building and ancillary works. This application was deferred on two occasions for a site visit and for further consideration of the issues, but was eventually refused by Members in June 2004.
Page 24
This second retrospective application was submitted in September 2004 and a decision has been significantly delayed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the applicant’s agent had begun to dispute the need for a planning application and maintained that the works were permitted via the 1991 consent. After seeking the view of the Counsel, it is concluded that this is not the case and that a planning application is required. Secondly the applicant’s main agent changed during the process and adopted a different approach to the submission of data. Finally, discrepancies in the data submitted by the applicant have required further attention.
The Current Proposal
The buildings in question are the two central poultry buildings shown on the applicant’s plan. One has a floor area of 1,525 square metres, whilst the other is longer but narrower at 1,440 square metres. The left-hand poultry house has an eaves level of 2.6 metres, rising to a ridge height of 5.4 metres, whilst the right-hand one is smaller at the ridge but slightly taller than at the eaves. The egg storage building in between the poultry houses is much smaller and has a floorspace of 160 square metres and is 5.7 metres at the ridge and 4.25 metres at the eaves level.
The Issue of Odour Nuisance and Flies
The previous application refers to two reasons for refusal. The first of these concerns the emission of odours and the potential for the emissions of ‘PM10’ particles. The applicant had failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that odour nuisance could be abated and that PM10 emissions could be controlled to safe levels. The issue of PM10 particles is discussed later in this report.
The first report issued by ADAS was based upon a single visit to the site, carried out in mild weather, and reported that poultry odour was only detectable immediately adjacent to the poultry houses. This sole visit did not in itself provide the necessary evidence that odour nuisance is not an issue, nor did it demonstrate that any nuisance arising from the site, including PM10 particles, could be abated.
One resident has continued to provide a useful log of activity to Environmental Health detailing odour strength and wind speeds. The most detailed log covers a period from 6 February 2004 to 21 April 2005 and concludes that most odours were either ‘moderate’ or ‘strong’ despite varying weather conditions.
Environmental Health Officers have made numerous visits to the site, often as a result of receiving complaints from residents. However their investigations have only revealed a mild, mealy odour. This is not to say that a stronger odour problem does not exist; it is possible for example that the length of time it takes for Officers to visit the site from Morecambe Town Hall means that the odour has reduced.
The applicant’s agent has attempted to provide a more appropriate and accurate report than the ADAS submission. The latest study, undertaken by AES (Analytical & Environmental Services Ltd) on behalf of the applicants, should be considered as the most up-to-date odour assessment, received on 9 November 2005.
It analyses ammonia concentrations at ‘receptor’ locations close to the site. The downside of this study is that it only researches the presence of one gas. However it is not possible to take measurements of ‘chicken odour’ per se, and so the applicant has chosen a known constituent of the odour. Ammonia is quite characteristic of chicken waste, and the Environmental Health Service advises that it was a reasonable choice as an indicator chemical.
The method of sampling involved taking a background level of ammonia and then placing ammonia diffusion tubes in an arc generally downwind of the site. The period of study was 28 September-7 October 2005.
Page 25
The report indicates that ammonia levels were highest directly outside the main entrance gates, but even here the concentration was three times lower than the Environmental Assessment Levels determined by the Health & Safety Executive. The lowest ammonia concentrations were found within the centre of Overtown and at Low Gale. Wind directions at the time were generally southerly or easterly. The report therefore concludes that there is minimal impact from odorous releases from the site during the assessment period.
Whilst this proved to be a useful study, there are still some omissions. Ideally odour recording would take place all year round, to ensure that all stages of the chicken breeding cycle are accounted for. This would also allow for seasonal weather variations, and a longer period to gather representative samples from the diffusion tubes. Whilst the Planning Authority must take account of the odour objections received from residents, the failure of Officers to detect anything other than the ‘mealy’ odour is noted, and some weight must still be attached to the ammonia results.
Every 60 weeks the farm is emptied and thoroughly cleaned and washed down. This process has occurred during late October and was due to be completed in mid-November. The Environmental Health Service has indicated that there have been no new complaints regarding odour during this intensive period. By contrast, annual plant cleaning generated a significant number of complaints in 2004, most notably due to the deposit of chicken litter.
A number of objectors have raised the issue of fly infestation. In response to this, the Senior Environmental Health Officer visited the site in 2004 and collected fly samples for independent identification. The outcome of these studies showed that two species of fly were prevalent, namely greenbottles and cluster flies, which are considered to be very common in rural areas and there is no evidence linking them with the operation.
Odour Remediation Measures
A significant difference between this application and the previous refusal is that the applicant now acknowledges that there have been problems associated with odour at this site, and improvements to the plant and to site management procedures have now occurred.
They attribute the previous odour problems to the poor condition of chicken litter caused by an unsatisfactory ventilation system. Vents were often closed to prevent smells, but this led to a build-up of odour that was released when the vents were periodically opened.
A new heating system installed in all the houses will allow environmental control by warming the air and drying out the litter, thus preventing significant odour.
In addition a company called Air Pollution Products & Systems Ltd have been employed to help capture further defused emissions via a odour control system, which has already been fitted.
PM10 Particles
PM (particulate matter) 10 is the name given to those particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less, which is approximately one-seventh the width of a human hair. These particles can penetrate deep into the lungs because of their size and can cause damage to those at risk. Emissions of PM10's have generally declined since 1970. Primary PM10’s can be emitted from road transport but are often formed through the break-up of larger matter, (e.g. mechanical generation) and can include wind-blown dusts and soils, fires and combustion activities. PM10’s are usually more prevalent during winter months.
Page 26
In addition to the ammonia survey, PM10 levels were monitored on agricultural land in between the Farm and Carlow House between 22 June and 2 July 2005. The Air Quality Standard for PM10’s is 50mg/m3, and particulate matter should not exceed this figure. The applicant reports high figures at the start of the study, attributed to the monitor ‘settling down’ (although this cannot be verified). After the first couple of days the average PM10 level was recorded at 15.4mg/m3, significantly below the standard level.
It would have been useful to have a longer period of study to assess this issue. Contrasting weather conditions, particularly colder weather, would have strengthened the analysis. However what is of note is that there were a variety of wind directions for the duration of the study and that temperatures ranged from 14 degrees Celsius to 27 degrees.
The previous refusal described the ‘potential’ for PM10 emissions. These results, albeit on a small timescale, indicate that the emissions did not, on average, exceed the Air Quality Standard figure.
The Issue of Noise
A number of attempts have been made at providing detailed noise assessments. Two recent submissions are relevant; the Noise Assessment undertaken by AES in September 2005 and the Additional Environmental & Tonal Noise Assessment (also by AES) a month later.
The first report investigated site boundary noise, sporadic noises, background and night-time noise. It concluded that the distance of the complex to the nearest residential property is “sufficient not to cause a statutory nuisance”. This report was criticised by this Authority as failing to provide sufficient data. In particular, the background noise location was too far away from the plant and the conclusions regarding tonal noise were inconsistent with earlier reports, and indeed with some of the paragraphs in the same document.
Consideration of the case was therefore deferred until the supplementary report into tonal noise was submitted. This report sought to clarify the background noise with all building fans turned off and tonal noise testing of all houses in order and cumulatively.
They concluded that the effects of noise output on the nearest residential property is ‘negligible’ and that when houses 3 and 4 (the unauthorised poultry houses) are operating on their own there is a very small increase over background noise, equating to 0.3dB. The applicant suggests that the extraction equipment is of a modern design and this small increase in noise is inaudible over the existing plant noise. This conclusion was also reached with regard to tonal noise, which was measured at 7dB, aside from one dominant `spike’ in noise that they attribute to a source outside the chicken farm.
Again the report failed to satisfactorily clarify the noise levels in the Overtown area, and so the Environmental Health Service undertook their own noise monitoring on the evening of 16 November 2005. Monitoring took place in a field entrance 210m from the site between the farm and the residential properties. A series of measurements were taken with all the various fans turned on and off. Other background noises included distant traffic noise from the A65 and noise from Leck Beck.
The results indicated that an increase of 3dB occurred when all fans were switched on, and the noise was described as a “low rumble”. However when the fans to houses 3 and 4 were turned on alone there was no significant increase in noise levels. The Environmental Health Service concluded that the older poultry houses are responsible for this low rumble noise.
Page 27
The Issues of Highway Impact and Traffic
The second reason for refusal related to an increase in the size of vehicles serving the site and an increase in vehicular numbers on a restricted-width highway network.
During May 2005 the agent indicated that the applicants would willingly accept a planning condition (should any application be successful) limiting traffic movements and the direction of traffic to the site. Traffic movements were estimated at 1 sucker tanker per month, 2.6 feed deliveries per week and 2 egg collections per week. The only alternative arrangements occur when the site is being littered-out. A condition could be imposed restricting movements to these figures, and limiting all deliveries to between 0800-1630 Monday to Friday.
It is considered that bringing traffic in from the Burrow direction, as opposed to the Overtown/A65 end, would also alleviate the problem of HGV’s accessing the tight Overtown corner. Again a condition or legal agreement could be imposed to control this situation. A minority of objectors live at the Burrow end of the site, and this arrangement would not resolve their concerns regarding traffic. However on balance, it would seem a more appropriate route than taking the vehicles through Overtown and around the tight right-angled bend in the settlement.
A sign at the junction of Woodman Lane advises that the highway is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles. However this is an advisory sign only and such vehicles are not prohibited from using this road. A Traffic Regulation Order limiting these vehicles would not be effective because it would not apply to existing users of the Lane.
On a related matter the County Highways Department have requested an improvement to sightlines at the main entrance. This would involve the removal of a substantial length of hedgerow. In the event of a positive recommendation and given the relatively low vehicle numbers and the impact that hedgerow removal would cause, it is not proposed to impose this as a planning condition.
Bird Flu
The recent press coverage regarding avian influenza has led to some concern amongst residents. Whilst this is a relevant issue it is not a material consideration in this planning application. The industry is regulated by DEFRA and their recent document – “Biosecurity and Preventing Disease” explains the steps considered necessary for ensuring that the flock remains healthy. It is not for the planning process to intervene any further.
Site Landscaping and the Appearance of the Buildings
The site is quite densely screened from the Woodman Lane approach, although the white/grey roofs are clearly visible above this belt of planting. The site is less successfully screened to the Overtown side, and it would be beneficial if additional landscaping is imposed to shield the site. The applicants have previously stated that they would not be averse to this.
Because the original buildings were erected under the permitted development rights, the Local Planning Authority did not have control of the colour of the roofs of these structures. The later buildings were subject to a planning application but it was clearly felt at the time that the roofs should match in colour. However if this application is favourably considered, it would now appear to be an appropriate juncture to have a different colour to the roofs of the three unauthorised buildings. An Olive Green colour was agreed in May this year.
Page 28
IPPC Accreditation
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) accreditation was introduced to establish an integrated approach to controlling the environmental impacts of certain industrial activities. IPPC requires all those organisations affected by the regulation to implement environmental management systems.
The applicant has applied for an IPPC permit to the Environment Agency. The latest position is that the Agency has requested further information in advance to their decision to award a permit or not. Without this permit, site operations would cease.
If IPPC is granted, future responsibility for the environmental impacts of the enterprise pass to the Environment Agency.
Conclusion
The local planning authority has continually stated that the retrospective nature of this application is regrettable. Such submissions do nothing for the public perception of the planning process but a common problem nationally and not peculiar to the Lancaster District. However a decision must now be reached based upon the facts of this case.
There is a general consensus that a unit of this scale would not normally be permitted in this relatively exposed rural location. However it is recognised that the plant has been established via historic permitted development rights and regardless of the recommendation on this application, the farm will continue to operate from this site, either with or without the buildings now proposed.
It is equally clear that the erection of the three unauthorised buildings constitutes significant intensification of the site. In visual amenity terms, this can be minimised via additional landscaping and the replacement of the white roofs to the three buildings in question. The footprint of the site has not increased because the structures are located in between the older chicken houses.
Therefore, the outcome of the application rests on the impact of noise, odour and traffic.
With regard to noise, an independent assessment undertaken by the Council has revealed that the low rumble cannot be attributed to the two new chicken houses, and that it is the older buildings that are responsible. Whilst there may be environmental health legislation that could alleviate this problem, it is apparent that noise cannot be a justifiable reason for opposing this application.
The issue of odour is more complex. The applicant now acknowledges that previous operating practices and poor management were contributing to an odour problem, and therefore the figures provided by the residents do not appear to be being disputed anymore. Previous odour surveys have been insufficient and inconclusive. The latest ammonia survey indicates that the levels of this gas are not excessive, and the PM10 study shows levels not exceeding the prescribed levels, although both reports are not without fault. The remediation measures include a new heating system and an odour control system. It is noticeable that there has been a reduction in the number of odour complaints to the Environmental Health Service in recent months.
Taking the remediation measures into account, the Local Planning Authority is of the view that the applicant has begun to accept responsibility for odour emissions in the locality and that continuing control is practicable. It is envisaged that IPPC accreditation, should it be forthcoming, would ensure that standards of environmental practice continue to be improved and the company will have to adhere to the requirements of IPPC certification if they wish to continue operating.
It is on this basis that, in terms of odour, the application as amended is considered to be acceptable, subject to conditions regarding the heating and odour control systems.
Page 29
It is safe to assume from the complaints received via local residents that traffic to and from the site has increased, and that heavier goods vehicles now access the site. It is more difficult to gauge the percentage increase, since no figures existed for the previous scale of operation.
However in the absence of a highway objection it would appear that there is little scope for resisting the proposals on traffic grounds. The application presents an opportunity to tightly control the number of deliveries per week; to establish an agreed route for all vehicles; and to ensure HGV’s and other delivery vehicles only operate between 0800-1630.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in this report and summarised in this conclusion, Members are advised that this retrospective application can now be supported.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
The applicant's right to develop the site has been balanced against the views and rights of objectors. However, for the reasons set out in this report and having regard to the principles of proportionality, the objections do not outweigh the applicant's right to use and develop the land provided that the recommended conditions are adhered to.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: -
1. Amended plan condition 2. Use and development as per approved plans 3. The site shall be used as a breeder complex and shall not include broiler production 4. The buildings in question shall only be actively used (at any time) when the air heating system and the odour control system are in full working order 5. Vehicle deliveries restricted to 1 sucker tanker per month, 2.6 feed deliveries per week and 2 egg collections per week. No deliveries shall take place outside the approved hours of 0800-1630 Monday to Friday and all vehicle movements shall use the Woodman Lane access point (not the A65 access) 6. Submission of additional landscaping scheme to settlement boundary 7. Colour of all three roofs shall be Olive Green 8. Separate sewerage system
Page 30
This page is intentionally left blank Page 31 Agenda Item 10
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
29 July 2005 05/00734/OUT A10 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR THE LAND ADJACENT KELLET ROAD IND ESTATE FORMATION OF CARNFORTH BUSINESS KELLET ROAD PARK - PROVISION OF MIXED USE CARNFORTH SCHEME FALLING WITHIN CLASSES B1, LANCASHIRE B2 AND B8 LA5 9XP
APPLICANT: AGENT:
Peterloo Estates Ltd Fletcher Bennett Architects 3rd Floor Regus House 82 King Street Manchester M2 4WQ
REASON FOR DELAY
Awaiting consultation replies and additional traffic information in support of the proposal
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Carnforth Town Council - At first sight the objections they raised to the earlier application (04/00853) have not been addressed and they are concerned that the gas pipeline crossing the site does not appear to be shown Over Kellet Parish Council - No objections to the proposal. It is felt that should the scheme come to fruition it may ease problems within Carnforth
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
The majority of the site is allocated for business use in the Lancaster District Local Plan. Some areas on the fringes of the site overlap with areas allocated as countryside and urban greenspace (see report below)
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
County Council Planning - The site contains sand and gravel resources. The extent of these should be investigated and the potential for extracting them needs to be considered before permission is granted (see the report below). They also draw attention to the possible effect of the development on the Kellet Road verges, which have been identified as a County Council Biological Heritage, County Council Highways - As the issues identified by the Highways Agency have been addressed, the scheme is now considered acceptable. However conditions are required to ensure that:- - The access road into the site has a gradient no steeper than 5% for the first 30 metres from the Kellet Road junction - Off site highway works are agreed before development is commenced, and carried out before any buildings on the site are occupied - A contribution is made towards the cost of public transport improvements Page 32
- A Business Travel Plan is agreed with the occupiers of the premises They also suggest that it would be useful for the permitted development rights which allow transfers between use classes B1, B2 and B8 to be removed. Highways Agency - Pointed out that there were flaws in the Traffic Impact Assessment submitted with the scheme; they asked for some parts of it to be supplemented with more information. The applicants' agents, who have modified their Traffic Impact Assessment to take account of criticisms of it, and it is now considered acceptable. Engineering Services - The application provides no information on the intended internal layout which have to be considered in the context of a reserved matters application. There are problems with storm water drainage and the developer is recommended to consider the use of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System. Conditions should be attached to any permission requiring details of perimeter drainage arrangements and the provision of suitable separators/interceptors for parking areas. A separated drainage system will be required. Environmental Health - Note that as the proposal is for an industrial estate some of the uses could involve noises and smells. They suggest the imposition of various conditions to control these, and also construction hours conditions. The site is within an area known to be affected by radon gas and appropriate construction measures will be needed to deal with it. Economic Development - the development of this site would make a valuable addition to sites available in the district for industrial and warehouse development. Environment Agency - Observations in the light of the Flood Risk assessment to follow. British Gas Transco - No observations received. United Utilities - No objections provided that the scheme is drained using a separated system. Flow investigations will be needed to establish whether the existing sewer network has the capacity to accommodate the development. Standard requirements for new sites apply. Account should be taken of the practical problems associated with trees near overhead lines and underground cables. North West Regional Development Agency - No comments on the proposal, which is outside the scope of the kind of development on which they wish to be consulted.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
None, at the time this report was drafted
REPORT
Site Description
This green field site, with an area of 9.8ha, is on the north east edge of Carnforth, and adjoins Kellet Road Industrial Estate. Its eastern boundary abuts the M6 motorway. At present it is used for grazing sheep.
There are two footpaths crossing the site (nos. 5 and 25) which link Kellet Road with the Lancaster Canal. From a landscape point of view the land concerned is an attractive and prominent drumlin landscape, which is highly visible in views of Carnforth from the north and west, especially from the motorway and the Lancaster Canal. The land is crossed by high voltage electricity lines.
Site History
Adjoining land has been worked for sand and gravel and there are understood to be significant resources under the land; however the area is not formally safeguarded in the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Disposal Plan. In 1993 a proposal for the extraction of sand and gravel was refused consent, and in 1994 a subsequent appeal was dismissed. This issue is considered later in the report.
More recently, in 2004, an outline proposal similar to the present one was submitted but it was withdrawn when it became apparent that there were practical problems with the access arrangements. The present scheme is an amended version which is intended to overcome the earlier problems. The site boundary has also been altered so that it corresponds with the Local Plan allocation (the original version included an area reserved for countryside and open space uses). Page 33
The Proposal
The application is a submission for the development of the land as a business park for B1 (offices, light industry and research uses), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution uses). It is in outline form only and does not include any indicative layout plan so any approval would need to control the layout and distribution of uses throughout the site. The accompanying plan does, however, indicate the general arrangement of a new access to be created onto Kellet Road. The application is accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment and this is covered in detail later in the report. All other matters are reserved, to be the subject of future submissions.
Policy Background
Policy EC3 of the Lancaster District Local Plan states that:
"The 7.8 ha of land identified as the Carnforth Business Park is allocated for B1 (business and light industrial) and B2 (general industrial) use. Proposals for uses which could result in significant increases in HGV movements in or out of Carnforth Town Centre will not be permitted."
Other Local Plan policies relevant to the proposal are:-
- EC6, which sets out criteria for new employment development - EC8, which restricts non-employment development on employment allocations - T9, which requires development likely to increase the need to travel to make provision for buses and provide appropriate pedestrian and cycle links - T16, setting out Lancashire County Council's parking standards - T22, resisting development which would generate significant levels of traffic on Carnforth's main road network - T27, stating that developments affecting rights of way must provide alternative routes - E4, identifying the area on the northern site boundary as Countryside - E11, covering development affecting flood plains - E17, which identifies Kellet Road verges as a County Biological Heritage site - E29, which identifies adjacent land to the west as Urban Greenspace - E30, identifying the Lancaster Canal as a "green corridor" - E44, this identifies Kellet Road as an "access corridor" and sets out design criteria for adjacent development - R8, which identifies the canal and the surrounding area as an informal recreation area.
The County Council have drawn attention to the possible impact of the development on a Biological Heritage site along the verges of Kellet Road, and its possible impact on birds, bats and badgers.
When the application was submitted, consideration was given to whether it would be appropriate to ask the developers to provide an Environmental Impact Assessment in support of it. It was concluded that this was not necessary. A Traffic Impact Assessment has however been provided and, as will be seen from the consultation replies detailed earlier, the Highways Agency were not satisfied with this in its original form. They are however willing to accept the amended version.
Analysis
The principle of developing the land for industry is consistent with the provisions of the Local Plan. The Local Plan envisages its use for B1 and B2 uses rather than for B8 (storage and distribution). However, proposals for individual B8 uses may also be considered to be appropriate on their merits, particularly where they involve the relocation of poorly located local businesses which would benefit the area as a whole. It is not expected these would form the dominant land use however, and a condition is proposed to ensure that a mix of uses is achieved.
Page 34
The obvious access into it, off the existing Kellet Industrial Estate, is not shown. The present scheme, like the 2004 one, envisages a second access road and it is understood that this approach has been adopted because of a dispute over the cost of acquiring a ransom strip separating the site from the present access road. The County Highway Authority have not raised objections to the revised access arrangements.
In landscape terms, the site is most prominent from the north and its development will impact on long distance views of Carnforth from the A6 road and the M6 motorway. It will also have some effect on views from the Lancaster Canal. With this in mind, appropriate landscaping is particularly important. This also has the potential to avoid future problems with advertisements on buildings facing towards the M6 motorway. The detailed layout will also have to take account of the public footpaths affected.
Consideration needs to be given to the County Council's argument that the sand and gravel resources associated with the site may be too important to be sterilised, and should be worked in advance of any form of development on the land. However the argument for taking this approach is not a strong one, especially in view of the 1994 appeal decision. The area involved is relatively small and the plant and equipment associated with the previous mineral operations in the area has long since been removed. In addition sand and gravel working would inevitably give rise to a prolonged period of disturbance which could be a serious problem for the nearby secondary school. Finally, the reduction in the level of the land would be likely to reduce significantly the amount of land available for development.
The case for sand and gravel excavation has been put to the applicants. They do not wish to pursue it. They accept that sand and gravel resources exist on part of the site. However, they point out that mineral excavation was considered inappropriate on the site in 1994 because of the detrimental effect it would have had on its surroundings and argue that since other such operations in the area have ceased, the objections to it are all the stronger. On balance, it is concluded that it would not be reasonable or appropriate to require the developers to pursue this option.
The arrangement proposed, involving a second access road, cannot be regarded as ideal, but provided that the highway access arrangements are workable the City Council as local planning authority cannot insist on the use of an access via the ransom strip. Against this the potential benefits of developing the site for employment related uses are substantial. The site has easy access to the motorway network and as such, would be particularly suitable for a variety of business and employment uses.
A difficulty which has to be addressed is that the proposed vehicular access takes no account of the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. For pedestrians, it would involve walking up to the top of a hill and down the other side, for cyclists, the position would be made even worse by the need to negotiate a busy road junction. This is an important consideration as a major advantage of the site is that it is within walking distance of a large residential area on the east side of Carnforth. The matter was raised at the time of the application and it is understood that pedestrian and cycle traffic could be accommodated on the access road serving the existing Kellet Road industrial estate. This point can be addressed by a suitable worded condition.
Public transport to and from the site is at present limited to an infrequent service along Kellet Road linking Carnforth with Over Kellet and other villages in the Lune Valley. The applicants recognise that this is inadequate and are willing to provide £20,000 a year over a five year period to secure an improved bus service. This will require an agreement under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.
Conclusions
The development is generally consistent with the Local Plan allocation and with the other policies affecting the site. It is therefore recommended that permission should be granted, subject to a Section 106 Agreement dealing with the financial contribution to public transport improvements, and the conditions listed below. The issue of off-site highway works can be dealt with by means of a "negative condition" requiring that they should be completed before any of the buildings within the development are occupied.
Page 35
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IMPLICATIONS
Two sections of the Human Rights Act are relevant: Article 8 (privacy/family life), and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). There are no issues arising from the current proposal which are of such significance as 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to an agreement under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 requiring a contribution of £20,000 per year for a five year period to fund improvements to the bus service serving the site, and the following conditions:-
1. Standard outline condition. 2. Details to be submitted - siting, design, materials, landscaping. 3. Amended plans dated 13 July correcting the site boundary. 4. Provision of an overall masterplan at the reserved matters stage showing the split between B1, B2 and B8 uses along with structural landscaping proposals. 5. Details of internal highway network to be agreed. 6. Landscaping to be implemented during the first planting season following occupation of first buildings on the site. 7. Pedestrian/cycle link to access road serving the existing Kellet Road Industrial Estate to be provided before any buildings within the development are made available for occupation. 8. Details of perimeter drainage to be agreed. 9. Separators/interceptors to be provided for car park areas. 10. Separated drainage system to be provided. 11. Survey of ecological impact to be carried out and any mitigation measures recommended to be included within the landscaping scheme. 12. Access into site to be no steeper than 5% for the first 30 metres. 13. Details of off-site highway works to be agreed. 14. No buildings within site to be occupied until the off site highway works have been completed. 15. Business Travel Plans to be agreed for premises within the site. 16. As required by consultees.
ADVICE
1. Naming/numbering of industrial units/premises to be agreed. 2. Environment Agency requirements. 3. Area affected by Radon Gas -appropriate measures required in the construction of buildings on the site. 4. Public footpaths crossing site must not be obstructed without an appropriate Order. Page 36
This page is intentionally left blank Page 37 Agenda Item 11
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
7 December 2005 05/01295/FUL A11 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
RECONSTRUCTION OF DERELICT MOORCOCK HALL FARMHOUSE TO PROVIDE A TIED CLAUGHTON MOOR AGRICULTURAL DWELLING AND LANCASTER ASSOCIATED STORE/WORKSHOP LANCASHIRE
APPLICANT: AGENT:
Natfarms Ltd Thomas Associates Architects C/o Blackpool FC Seasiders Way Blackpool FY1 6JJ
REASON FOR DELAY
Committee Cycle
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Claughton Parish Council has no objections to the proposal
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
The site is designated as a Countryside Area in the Lancaster District local Plan. It also lies within the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A public right of way runs through the site
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
County Land Agent - Now that the nearby cattle building has been completed there is a greater functional need for an agricultural worker’s dwelling nearby. This need would become essential if the building has a herd of 100 suckler cows and their calves housed in it. County Highways - No objection. United Utilities - No objection in principle. Advice has been provided regarding septic tank and soakaway arrangements. Environmental Health Service - No objection, the development will be served by a private water supply. Environment Agency - No approval subject to a condition regarding the disposal of foul and surface waters. The Ramblers - Commented on the previous planning applications that the domestic paraphernalia would be intrusive and would prefer a lesser use. They have indicated that these comments are still applicable. English Nature - Views not received at the time of compiling this report. County Archaeologist - No further response is required. Page 38
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
None
REPORT
This is the third retrospective application attempting to retain an unauthorised building on Claughton Moor.
Location of Development & Planning History
The site is located in a remote upland position approximately 250 metres due south-east of the settlement of Claughton, and 180 metres due south of Claughton Hall. It is surrounded by agricultural land on all four sides and dense woodland exists further to the south east. Previously the site was occupied by a series of buildings that comprised the Moorcock Hall part of the estate. These buildings included a large barn and a number of smaller agricultural structures and stables.
Moorcock Hall Farm is one part of Natfarm Ltd’s estate, which also includes Manor House Farm, Claughton Hall and several dwellings. The estate amounts to approximately 1,012 hectares. The applicant presently resides at Manor House Farm (where there are no conditions restricting agricultural occupancy). Deep Clough Farm also formed part of the agricultural portfolio, but has since been sold.
In 1997 a planning application was submitted to convert the barn and all attached buildings into a dwellinghouse, similar in depth to the current proposal but shorter in width. The application was withdrawn, and the buildings were subsequently demolished to accommodate the current proposal. The applicant has previously advised that the former buildings had become unsafe, but they have also admitted that there is no recent structural survey to substantiate those claims.
During 2001 planning permission was granted for a modern, portal-framed sheep building due north-east of the application site. The applicant has since indicated that the building will be used to accommodate cattle, and at present 35 suckler cows and their calves are housed in this building. In addition 40 heifers outside the structure will be wintered in the building and it will also be used for lambing. The location of this building is a material consideration to this application.
Since the unauthorised building was discovered, enforcement proceedings have been held in abeyance pending the determination of retrospective applications. The first attempt (Reference 04/00036/FUL) sought to retain the whole building for three principal uses, namely an estate worker’s dwelling, an estate office and a shooting lodge. This application was withdrawn.
The second application (Reference 04/00813/FUL) proposed an estate worker’s dwelling, a barn, a vehicle store and a farm workshop, all within the same footprint. This proposal was refused in July 2004 for four reasons, namely: -
• That there was no essential requirement for an agricultural worker’s dwelling in this location;
• That the ancillary uses were inappropriately located and not necessary in this location;
• That the siting of a structure of this scale was inappropriate within the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);
• That the development would set a precedent for similar proposals in the AONB.
As a consequence of the refusal enforcement action re-commenced. Page 39
This third submission seeks to retain part of the building for an agricultural dwelling and an associated workshop, farm vehicle store and staff toilet/canteen. The applicant has indicated that he will reside in the property. The County Land Agent has confirmed that he typically spends over 40 hours a week with his sheep and is full-time with them during the six weeks of lambing, and that he would be expected to comply with any agricultural occupancy condition imposed, should this application be successful.
The estate also has the benefit of woodland (used for holding pheasants) and moorland (which is being improved for grouse).
The Characteristics of the Structure
The frame of the structure is complete, although all internal walls have yet to be provided. Work has ceased pending the consideration of the retrospective applications.
The building is completed to a reasonably high standard with natural stone and slate being used. At present the structure measures 29.4 metres in length by 10.1 metres in depth, and the roof will rise from a height of 6 metres at the eaves level to 9.4 metres at the ridgeline. It occupies an elevated position above the village, although due to the undulations of the landscape and the presence of planting further down the hill it is not immediately visible from within the settlement. However it is visible at lengthier distances, such as from across the valley. The footprint of the building is approximately 297 square metres.
The applicants have accepted the Local Authority’s view that the structure is excessively large, and have proposed demolishing just under a third of the building. Therefore the building will measure 21.3 metres in length by 10.1 metres, providing a footprint of 215 square metres. The height of the main part of the building will remain unaltered, however part of the structure is reduced in height to 5.1 metres at the eaves and 8.5 metres at the ridge, in an effort to make part of the building appear subservient to the main body of the property.
The window and door opening shown are already provided.
The Agricultural Worker’s Dwelling
The dominant use of the property will be the agricultural worker’s dwelling, which will occupy two floors at a floor area of approximately 160 square metres.
The justification for the dwelling is that permanent supervision of the nearby cattle shed is necessary. National planning guidance advises that the protection of livestock from theft or injury may contribute to the need for an agricultural dwelling, but it will not by itself be sufficient to justify one.
The Local Planning Authority has sought the views of their agricultural consultee, the County Land Agent. With regard to permanent agricultural dwellings, applicants have to demonstrate that there is an existing functional need for a full-time worker for a business that has been established for at least 3 years, and that the business is financially sound. The Land Agent has confirmed that this need is satisfied bearing in mind the increasing number of suckler cows and their calves. This need cannot be fulfilled from the existing base at Manor House Farm, because at a distance of 1.4 miles from this site it is considered too far away from the cattle building.
However a useful dwelling could theoretically have been sited elsewhere on the estate, in a less exposed position. Page 40
Ancillary Uses
Adjacent to the dwelling is a proposed chemical store and staff toilet and canteen, with a workshop above. Beyond this on the ground floor will be a farm vehicle store, with a void above. The applicant has submitted a supporting statement indicating that these uses are necessary to provide for the secure storage of equipment and machinery, and to provide shelter for other workers employed on the estate, which include three gamekeepers and two placement students from Myerscough College.
It is reasonable to assume that some agricultural equipment will be required, and it would appear that Moorcock Hall will be the `base’ for the estate as a whole. If there is a need for these uses, then it may be argued that these uses could be accommodated in other locations on the estate.
The County Land Agent has commented that it “is not unreasonable for a new farmhouse and farm building complex to have ancillary buildings as part of the development and these could include a workshop and secure store”.
Visual Impact
The structure is isolated and is particularly obvious from the adjacent right of way although this has to be balanced against the fact that there were buildings originally located in the landscape in this position. The addition of any domestic paraphernalia associated with the residential element of the use would be visually disruptive. To an extent this could be controlled via a suitable planning condition. It should also be noted that the rear of the property faces away from the public footpath.
Assessment of Case
The first issue is whether there should be a structure of any form or use on this particular parcel of land.
District Plan Policy E3 advises that in AONB locations there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. National guidance also recognises that new buildings should normally form part of a group rather than stand in isolation.
This is an unusual case because of the history of the site. The applicant has not erected a building on an undeveloped site, but has demolished a range of former agricultural buildings and erected a replacement structure. It has always been argued that this replacement building was excessive in scale and that this exacerbated the visual impact. However the proposed demolition of a significant length of this structure means that this unit is comparatively smaller in footprint than the series of buildings it replaces. The hardstanding area to the side of the structure is proof that the former buildings had a lengthier frontage.
The reduction in height of part of the building succeeds in making the farm vehicle store subservient to the remainder of the property, whilst the deletion of existing windows in favour a traditional `cart door’ opening is preferable to the current appearance of the front elevation.
If the building had not been constructed then the redundant and ruinous buildings would either still be retained, or would have been demolished leaving a substantial area of hardstanding. Neither scenario is particularly attractive.
I have therefore reached the conclusion that on balance a reduced, replacement building in this location would not be inappropriate given the former use of the site.
With regard to the proposed uses, it is accepted that the cattle building will require close on-site supervision. Whilst it has been maintained that an agricultural worker’s dwelling could be accommodated elsewhere on the holding, the undulations of the landscape restricts the possibilities. Where there is flat land, at Claughton Hall for example, a dwelling would be too far away from the cattle building to fulfil its purpose. Page 41
The Land Agent has previously accepted the internal area of the dwelling and the fact that it would serve a useful purpose. There is a functional need for a worker to be on site day and night to principally provide essential care for, and to a lesser degree, monitor the cattle. It is on this basis that this use is considered satisfactory. A planning condition can be imposed restricting occupation of the property to a farm worker.
The farm vehicle storage area now benefits from a traditional vehicular opening and the removal of its present domestic appearance. There are no objections to this element of the proposal. The other uses appear peripheral and there is some debate whether they are reasonably necessary. Compared to the last application, a workshop, storeroom, office and upper barn have been deleted from the scheme. I am satisfied that the chemical store has been reduced to an appropriate size, and the workshop is now usefully accessed via the ground floor of the vehicle store and can be put to appropriate farm management uses.
The contentious issue is the staff canteen and toilet. However, given that the building is acceptable in principle this use accounts for a relatively small floor area. It is also unreasonable to assume that other farm employees should use the agricultural worker’s facilities. If this is a genuine effort to centralise the Moorcock Hall Estate, then the use can be accepted as appropriate, although it should be strictly conditioned.
Conclusion
It is regrettable that all three submissions have been retrospective planning applications. The erection of buildings without the requisite planning permissions has the potential to erode the confidence of the wider public in the planning system. However irrespective of this, the case must be considered on its merits.
The reduction in scale and the alterations to the appearance of the building have resulted in a structure akin to the one it replaces. The materials used are appropriate within this sensitive landscape.
The agricultural worker’s dwelling is required for the welfare of the nearby cattle, and the vehicle store is appropriately located adjacent to the residence. The other ancillary uses comprise useful functions, albeit functions that could be provided in other locations on the estate. However this is not in itself a sufficient reason for resisting the proposal. Based upon the existence of the previous buildings in this location, the siting of the structure is acceptable.
It is therefore concluded that the building is now acceptable in appearance and that the uses are appropriate. Members are advised that this application can now be supported.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal that appear 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: -
1. Development as per approved plans 2. Demolition of the unauthorised portion of the building prior to occupation 3. Occupancy of the residential unit to be limited to that of an agricultural worker employed on the holding Page 42
4. Farm vehicle store, workshop and chemical/poison store to be used for agricultural purposes only and not for any domestic or other commercial purpose 5. Staff canteen/toilet to be used solely by agricultural workers and not for any additional purpose 6. Removal of all permitted development rights 7. Scheme for foul and surface water disposal to be agreed 8. As required by consultees
Page 43 Agenda Item 12
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
12 October 2005 05/01100/FUL A12 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
ERECTION OF NEW BUILDINGS AND LEIGHTON HALL HOME FARM CONVERSION OF EXISTING LEIGHTON PARK AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS, EXTENSION LEIGHTON TO KEEPERS COTTAGE, CREATION OF LANCASHIRE CAR PARKING AND AUXILLARY LA5 5ST FACILITIES FOR RURAL WORKSPACE DEVELOPMENT
APPLICANT: AGENT:
Rural Business Centres Ltd Rural Solutions Broughton Hall Skipton BD23 3AE
REASON FOR DELAY
Negotiations with the applicants
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Yealand Conyers Parish Council - The proposal is large relative to the size of the village. While they are sympathetic to the principle of the scheme they would like to see steps taken to reduce its impact. A copy of their observations appears in full at the end of this report.
Warton Parish Council - Wish to object to the proposed development on the grounds of the potential for increased traffic using Coach Road as a means of access to the site. The road is hazardous; it is narrow and lacks street lighting, and there are numerous concealed driveways off it. The Parish Council welcomes the job opportunities which would be created and would be more inclined to support the application if a solution could be found to the traffic problem.
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Arnside/Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - The main accesses are narrow single track roads with passing places. The junctions in to them and the access into the site at Leighton Lodge all have substandard sight lines. The number of daily vehicle movements to be expected from a development of this scale is 268. This compares with an estimate of 236 for the timeshare scheme. The plan indicates 88 car parking spaces, considerably in excess of the 40 permitted by the County Council's parking standards. These also require provision for cycle and motorcycle parking.
Page 44
The site is not accessible by bus and there is no separate footway along the public roads to Leighton Hall, so an office development in this location would offer no realistic transport mode other than the private car. There are other footpath and bridleways but these are a significant distance from major residential areas and unlikely to be useable throughout the year. The option of opening up the Crag Foot route to general traffic is not recommended as it is a narrow single track road with limited visibility used by horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians. An increase in car traffic would reduce its attractiveness to other users.
In dealing with the Public Inquiry into the earlier timeshare proposal the Inspector concluded that:
- PPG13's objective of reducing reliance on the private car would be gravely undermined, since the development would be inaccessible by public transport, and - The effect of increased traffic on the local road network would be significant.
The office development proposed would generate at least as many trips and the Inspector's comments could apply equally to it. It is therefore recommended that this application should be refused. Arnside/Silverdale AONB Executive - The statutory and primary purpose of designation of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the area. No development should in any way degrade the landscape quality of the area. The AONB Management Plan states that it supports the provision of training schemes, business advice and start up grants and review the availability of suitable sites that could accommodate such development without detriment to the character and quality of the AONB. Their concerns about the scheme as submitted relate to:
- The traffic "roundabout" arrangement, which would encroach too far into open countryside - The new build element of the scheme; they query the need for blocks F and H. If block H is to be built a single storey building would be preferable. - The need to use a vernacular style for any new buildings, rather than rendered breeze blocks as shown - The amount of traffic, and the size of the car park. A smaller scheme would allow this to be reduced. The car park could also be cut into the side of the hill; the quality of screen planting is important. - The one way traffic scheme through the car park, which they consider unnecessary - Increased traffic through the villages - The potential for a one way traffic system, with an exit via Moss House Farm, needs to be investigated.
While they are sympathetic to the principle of the development they consider that these points need to be addressed. Environmental Health - Recommend hours restrictions on construction work, and an hours restriction on the workshop part of the development. United Utilities - No objections, but the developer is recommended to provide a separate service to the development. English Heritage - Do not wish to offer any comments; consider that the proposal should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance. County Archaeology - No works shall take place on site until the applicant, or their agent or successor in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of building recording and analysis
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
Ten letters have been received from residents of Warton, Yealand Conyers and Silverdale, who raise the following concerns:
- Inadequate road system, with steep hills and limited visibility - Danger to users of Coach Road, particularly horse riders - Impact on the countryside, particularly the view from Summerhouse Hill Page 45
- The other developments carried out by Rural Futures are in more accessible places, usually just off major roads - Conflict with the objectives of AONB designation - Contrary to the principles set out in PPG13 which are intended to reduce the need to travel - Office development employing 50-60 people inappropriate for a remote rural location.
One of them suggests that if the site is to be used in this way a new access should be opened to it from Crag Foot via Grisedale Farm. Two of them draw attention to the conclusions reached by the Inspector who dealt with the Public Inquiry into the earlier application for the timeshare proposal.
One of the objectors suggests that a more appropriate location for this form of development would be Crag Foot, on the Warton to Silverdale road. He is also concerned that insufficient information has been provided on the finances of the Leighton Hall estate to show that it is needed for the upkeep of the building.
A resident of one of the cottages at Home Farm has written to take strong exception to the way Rural Futures have described them as "mutilated" in the material accompanying their proposal.
A petition has been received from 45 residents of Coach Road, Warton objecting to the proposal on the grounds of increased traffic and the hazards this will bring to pedestrians, horse riders and other road users. They ask that permission should be refused.
Warton Village Society - Concerned about the increased traffic using an inadequate road system. Coach Road and Pewter Hill are narrow with steep gradients, no footway and few passing places. They draw attention to the riding school at Greenbank Farm, and the possible hazards for horse riders using Coach Road. An office development of the type proposed would not be in keeping with its setting and the number of staff employed would be better in an urban or suburban location.
Ramblers' Association - The site is very visible from the road between Leighton Moss and Yealand Storrs, the nearby bridleway and four footpaths. In all views the east side is the one seen and particular attention needs to be given to it. The traffic circle arrangement is not appropriate - a widened road with a separate footpath/bridleway would be better. Support the idea of an additional access route to Crag Foot. Overall they are concerned about the scale of the development and its impact on the road network. They would like it reduced in size.
Five letters have been received from residents of Yealand Redmayne and Yealand Conyers who support the proposal, arguing that it is needed to provide an adequate income to maintain Leighton Hall.
REPORT
This proposal involves a group of redundant agricultural buildings to the north of Leighton Hall. The Hall itself is a grade II* Listed Building dating from 1765 with some later nineteenth century additions. There is a grade II stable block to the rear.
The site has been the subject of development proposals in the past, most recently in 1997 when proposals were put forward for a timeshare housing scheme. This application (97/01014) was called in by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. A Public Inquiry was held, following which planning permission was refused.
Page 46
The present scheme involves creating business accommodation for small firms (effectively, class B1 office and light industrial units) arranged in a series of eight blocks. Most would involve the repair and reconstruction of existing buildings but two of them, shown as F and H on the plans, would be completely new. The total business floorspace available as a result of the development is given as 1413 sq metres. It is estimated that this would provide employment for some 50 to 60 people. The new buildings would be sited within the boundaries of the farm complex so they do not conflict with the spirit of PPG 7.
Four existing cottages within the group are to be retained though the opportunity is taken to modernise one of them by rebuilding the side extension.
A new road would be constructed to provide circulation within the site. The bulk of it, and the associated car parking (88 spaces) would be concealed within the wooded area at the rear of the existing buildings. However a section of it on the north east side of the site would intrude into open landscape.
The proposal has to be considered in relation to policy E3 of the Lancaster District Local Plan. This states that within and adjoining the Arnside/Silverdale and Forest of Bowland AONBs development which would either directly or indirectly have a significant adverse effect on their character or harm the landscape quality, nature conservation interests or features of geological importance will not be permitted. Any development permitted must be on an appropriate scale and use materials appropriate to the area.
As Leighton Hall and the adjoining stable block are Listed Buildings (the Hall is grade II*, and the adjoining stable block grade II), policy E33 is also important. It states that development which would have an adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character of Listed Buildings will not be permitted.
Policy EC4 deals with rural employment sites. It states that the conversion of buildings in on or on the edge of rural settlements to employment related uses will be permitted where the proposal:
- Is appropriate to its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, materials, external appearance and landscaping - Would not result in a significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents and businesses by reason of noise, vibration, soot, ash, grit, visual intrusion, light, traffic generation or parking - Makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking - Makes satisfactory arrangements for the disposal of sewage and waste water - Does not generate unacceptable levels or types of traffic on rural roads; and - Does not have a significant adverse effect on nature conservation interests.
The central government advice note PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) states in paragraph 17 that government policy is "to support the re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside where this would meet sustainable development objectives".
PPG13 (Planning Policy Guidance: Transport) is also relevant to the application. It requires that uses which generate a significant amount of traffic should be located in places which are accessible by means other than the private motor car. Paragraph 40 states that "in rural areas, the potential for using public transport and for non-recreational walking and cycling is more limited than in urban areas. However, the need for the same overall policy is as great".
In architectural terms the design submitted is generally a good one, which retains much of the character of the existing group. The statement accompanying the proposal argues that it is consistent with government policy as set out in PPS7 (Planning Policy Statement: Sustainable development in Rural Areas) in that offers an opportunity to diversify the rural economy, and that it would be a less intensive way of achieving this than tourism related uses. They make reference to other similar schemes they have carried out, particularly at Broughton Hall near Skipton and The Aske Stables near Richmond.
Page 47
A covering letter also refers to a previous consent for a nursing home on the site which was not implemented and suggests that the present scheme would be much less intensive.
In travel to work terms a case is put forward that the creation of significant jobs on this site could reduce journey to work times in Arnside/Silverdale which are among the highest in the County of Lancashire.
The major concerns about the proposal relate to the addition of a more substantial road network within the site than would otherwise be the case, and to the awkward access to the Leighton Hall site. There are at present two access roads to the Leighton Hall site. The main one is from Yealand Conyers, via Peter Hill; the second is from Warton, via Coach Road. Both are steep and narrow, with few passing places. Coach Road is particularly unsuitable for additional traffic; as several of the objectors point out, it is used by a significant number of horse riders.
The potential exists for a third route, via a private track on the north side of the estate which links Leighton Hall with Crag Foot. This is relatively level, and provides a relatively direct route to Silverdale railway station. It is at present available only on an occasional basis, as an exit route when major events such as concerts take place at the Hall. There is also a bridleway from Home Farm to the Leighton Moss Road, which is not suitable for use by motor traffic but could be upgraded for use by cyclists. The possibility of upgrading one of these routes has been raised with the applicants' agents. However it appears that they are not willing to include proposals for the use of either as part of the scheme. For the reasons set out in their comments, the County Council as highway authority do not support it either.
There is no public transport to Leighton Hall and there is no realistic prospect of its being available in future. Neither of the existing routes to the site can be regarded as cycle friendly as they both involve going over the top of a hill, with steep gradients in both directions.
As the County Council's highway observations make clear the number of vehicle movements associated with a development of this nature is likely to be higher than that of the earlier timeshare scheme and the bulk of them would be concentrated at the beginning and end of the working day. In the absence of any additional vehicular access the traffic to and from the site would almost all use Peter Hill and the awkwardly laid out junction in the centre of Yealand Conyers. There is no vehicular access to Leighton Hall from the north and east, so the claim that the scheme would assist in reducing journey time to employment opportunities is difficult to substantiate. Except in the case of Yealand Conyers and Yealand Redmayne, the journey time from all the surrounding villages to Leighton Hall by road is longer than that to Carnforth, which from most points of view is a much better place in which to provide new job opportunities for the northern part of the District.
Whilst the site is suitable for this form of development, it does not have the highway infrastructure to support it, nor would the scale of additional employment opportunities created be in what can reasonably be regarded as a sustainable location.
At the same time the access road on the north east side of the site, as designed, would have a significant adverse effect on both the landscape of the AONB and the setting of Leighton Hall. This part of the proposal is open to serious objection on policy grounds.
Taking these factors into account, it is respectfully recommended that the application submitted should be refused consent.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IMPLICATIONS
This application has to be considered in relation to two sections of the Human Rights Act: Article 8 (privacy/family life), and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). There are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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 48
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. Contrary to policy E33 of the Lancaster District Local Plan - adverse effect of the access road on the north east side of the site on the setting of Leighton Hall and the associated stable block which are grade II* and Grade II Listed Buildings. 2. Contrary to policy E3 of the Lancaster District Local Plan - adverse impact of the new access road on the north east side of the site on the character of the Arnside/Silverdale AONB. 3. Contrary to policy E4 of the Lancaster District Local Plan - adverse impact on the surrounding landscape, and adverse impact on the area, especially the village of Yealand Conyers, by reason of the additional traffic generated on rural roads. 4. Detrimental to highway safety - hazard associated additional traffic using narrow roads to and from the site with substandard visibility at road junctions. 5. Contrary to central government advice as set out in PPG13 - scheme involves new employment related buildings in an isolated rural location accessible only by private car, with no public transport available. Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank Page 55 Agenda Item 13
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
12 October 2005 05/01101/LB A13 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR LEIGHTON HALL HOME FARM RENOVATION, RESTORATION AND RE- LEIGHTON PARK USE FOR RURAL WORKSHOP LEIGHTON LANCASHIRE LA5 5ST APPLICANT: AGENT:
Rural Business Centres Ltd Rural Solutions Broughton Hall Skipton BD23 3AE
REASON FOR DELAY
Negotiations with the applicants
PARISH NOTIFICATION
See 05/01100
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Arnside/Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
See 05/01100
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
See 05/01100
REPORT
This is the Listed Building application accompanying 05/01100, reported previously.
Leighton Hall itself is a country house of 1765, with later additions, and is a Grade II* Listed Building. The stable block to the side of it is listed Grade II. The proposals for the conversion of the redundant agricultural buildings affects their setting. Page 56
A Listed Building application has to be considered purely in relation to the buildings and their setting. Consequently the problems associated with the capacity of the access roads to Leighton Hall are not relevant to it.
However the new road on the north east side of the complex, which would cut into open countryside, is a legitimate area of concern as it would affect the setting of Leighton Hall and the stable block as well as the buildings directly involved in the development.
It is recommended that the proposal be refused on these grounds.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IMPLICATIONS
This application has to be considered in relation to two sections of the Human Rights Act: Article 8 (privacy/family life), and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). There are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. Contrary to policy E33 of the Lancaster District local Plan - adverse effect of the access road on the north east side of the site on the setting of Leighton hall and the associated stable block which are grade II * and grade II Listed Buildings. Page 57 Agenda Item 14
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
4 January 2006 05/01384/CU A14 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
CHANGE OF USE - POST OFFICE/SHOP HALTON POST OFFICE TO LIVING ACCOMMODATION 83 HIGH ROAD HALTON LANCASTER LANCASHIRE LA2 6PS APPLICANT: AGENT:
Mr K Wilkinson & Mr F Cowper 73 Beech Road Halton Lancaster LA2 6PS
REASON FOR DELAY
N/A
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Views awaited
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Lancaster District Local Plan - Designates Halton as a rural settlement within the Countryside Area. In addition the site lies within the Halton Conservation Area
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
None
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
None to date, any comments will be reported to committee.
REPORT
This application seeks consent to change the use of Halton Post Office into an extension of the existing attached residential dwelling known as 83 High Road, Halton. The property is a two storey end cottage located mid way along High Road Halton close to its junction with New Street. Page 58
Planning History
The site has no previous planning history and has operated as the village post office for a considerable number of years.
Planning Policy
Policy S18 of the Lancaster District Local Plan seeks to protect the loss of village shops unless it can be demonstrated that committed attempts have been made to market the shop. Evidence will need to be provided that the property has been marketed in the appropriate local or trade press on more than two occasions at a realistic price over a period of at least one year and that no reasonable offers have been refused.
Marketing Evidence Submitted
The applicant has provided evidence of the marketing of the property from August 2003. The property was marketed from August 2003 to May 2004 with RTA a national business specialising in the sale of post offices at a total value of £184,900 (business £44,950 and property £139,950) plus stock at valuation. The marketing produced initial interests with details being sent out to 37 separate parties with no formal offers being received.
The contract was then terminated and marketing was put in hands of local agents Fisher Wrathall, who again specialise in business as well as residential sales. The property was first marketed on 18 August 2004 and is still currently for sale. The guide price for the property and business as a going concern was set at £220,000 and has been since reduced to £195,000. The sale information has been made available via the company web site, Lancaster City Council’s bi-monthly property portfolio and advertised in the local newspapers (Visitor/Lancaster Guardian) on a fortnightly basis. To date no offers have been received.
Other Village Facilities
The Post Office is not the only shop in the village, a small group of shops lie to the east of the application site. These shops serve the main convenience shopping function within the village together with the nearby butchers shop.
Assessment
In assessing the quality and quantity of the supporting evidence, District Plan Policy S18 is relevant the details and constraints of the policy are outlined above.
It is considered that the marketing of the property accords with the constraints set out in the policy preamble and that the guide price is a realistic one reflecting a rural property (two double bedded residential unit and separate business) which includes a substantial detached garden area
Taking these matters into account, and based upon the marketing and viability information submitted, I conclude that attempts to market the property have been unsuccessful and that the proposal accords with District Plan Policies. Members are advised that the application should be supported.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IMPLICATIONS
This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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 59
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: -
1. Standard time limit 2. Development to be untaken in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Precise details of external alterations of the shop frontage to be submitted and approved.
Page 60
Page 61 Agenda Item 15
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
28 November 2005 05/01291/FUL A15 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
ERECTION OF ONE 22.5 MINI MACRO TA CENTRE COLUMN WITH SIX ANTENNA TOGETHER CATON ROAD WITH EQUIPMENT CABINETS AT THE LANCASTER BASE OF POLE WITH 2.1M FENCE LANCASHIRE AROUND SITE LA1 3NY
APPLICANT: AGENT:
02 (UK) Ltd Pentland Ltd 260 Bath Road Slough Berkshire
REASON FOR DELAY
Application referred to committee at the request of an elected Member.
PARISH NOTIFICATION
None
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
The site lies within an Existing Employment Area as designated by the Lancaster District Local Plan. The boundary of the site adjoins an Informal Recreation Area and part of the Strategic Cycle Network. The River Lune is a County Biological Site. Caton Road is a main Access Corridor.
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
None
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
A resident of Skerton (and a member of the ‘No to O2’ Committee) has made representations regarding this application.
He comments that all telecommunication antennae should be sited away from residential areas and that using industrial sites is preferable. Taller masts in industrial areas are therefore more acceptable to residents. However because of the distance between this particular installation and the residents, they do not believe it is appropriate to offer detailed comment.
Page 62
REPORT
This application has been brought before Members at the request of Councillor Bryning.
The proposal consists of a 22.5 metre column mast, which will accommodate six antennae. Ancillary equipment cabinets and security fencing is also proposed.
The site in question is at the rear of the TA Centre, which has its main frontage onto Caton Road. The River Lune cyclepath runs immediately adjacent to the site, and this route is screened by a line of trees measuring approximately 13 metres in height. All other surrounding uses are commercial.
The application includes a valid International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Certificate and therefore there are no objections on public health grounds.
Therefore the main issue is the impact upon visual amenity. The aforementioned trees will provide screening of the lower part of the mast, but at a height of 22.5 metres it is clear that a significant portion of the structure will be visible from across the River Lune and from Skerton Bridge. Perhaps of greater concern is the view from Caton Road. The buildings in front of the application site are relatively low and because the highway is setback from the site it would afford clear views of the mast.
There can be no doubt that locating a mast in a commercially-zoned area is preferable to a proliferation of smaller masts within residential areas. However the benefits associated with this particular site must be weighed against any detriment caused to the visual amenities of the locality.
In negotiations, it was requested that the mast be reduced in height to ameliorate the impact. The applicant has advised that this cannot be achieved due to the surrounding topography of the area. The trees to the south side of the Industrial Estate would obstruct most of the signal if the mast were reduced. Other sites have been assessed, including existing masts at Lansil Way and the smaller 15- metre mast at the TA Centre, which is disguised as a telegraph pole. It was concluded that the physical separation required between operator’s equipment would result in proposals more intrusive than currently proposed. Other sites considered included Bridge House at Mainway and the Kitchen Design site on Slyne Road.
This is a finely-balanced case. The mast will be visible above the trees and is a tall structure in the urban landscape. However, on balance it is concluded that this commercial site is acceptable in principle and the thin nature of the pole itself would help remedy the visual impact. The pole can be coloured to help disguise the installation.
Members are advised that the application is acceptable for the reasons given above.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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 63
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: -
1. Standard three-year consent 2. Development as per approved plans 3. Colour of mast, ancillary equipment and fencing to be agreed Page 64
This page is intentionally left blank Page 65 Agenda Item 16
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
30 December 2005 05/01417/FUL A16 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
ERECTION OF A GLAZED PORCH AND SKERTON COMMUNITY CENTRE INTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO CREATE KING GEORGES PLAYING FIELD NEW WC FACILITIES, TRAINING ROOMS SLYNE ROAD AND AN EXTERNAL PLAY AREA LANCASTER LANCASHIRE LA1 2JH APPLICANT: AGENT:
Lou Andrews Harrison Pitt Architects Skerton Community Centre King Georges Field Lancaster LA1 2JH
REASON FOR DELAY
None
PARISH NOTIFICATION
None
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
The proposed building is sited within a Residential Area as designated by the Lancaster District Local Plan and is located off the A6 (Slyne Road) Access Corridor. The adjacent land to the west of the site is designated as Outdoor Playing Space and Urban Greenspace.
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
Engineering Services - No representations received within the statutory consultation period. Property Services - The site is owned by the City Council. No objections in principle, subject to the Community Centre liaising with Property Services and obtaining approval of City Contract Services (CCS) Ground Maintenance. An agreed update of the lease is also required to take account of the changes on site. Environmental Health - No objections. Access Officer - The application complies with relevant legislation but a series of advisory notes should be attached to any consent.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
No other observations have been received Page 66
REPORT
The site that is the subject of this application is located within a predominantly residential area north of the River Lune, sited between the King George Playing Fields and the A6 Access Corridor (Slyne Road) with residential properties adjoining the site to the north and east. The site appears to have adequate car parking facilities to the south of the proposed building. It should also be noted that the building and surrounding land are owned by the City Council.
Planning permission was granted in 2002 (Ref: 02/00902/FUL) for a single storey extension that was designed to wrap around the front and rear elevations of the existing building and encroach onto the adjacent Outdoor Playing Space. The Authority has been informed that the client is unable to fund the development previously approved.
In light of the above circumstances this application proposes a much reduced scheme, which comprises the erection of a porch, internal alterations and an external enclosed play area.
The glazed porch will measure approximately 1800mm x 3550mm and is sited towards the rear of the premises on the west elevation of the existing building. It will not protrude beyond the furthermost side elevation (west). The purpose of the new entrance is to provide a fully covered and accessible entrance, whilst enhancing the overall functionality of the centre. The glazed porch forms an entrance lobby, which provides access into the main hall and a separate access into the larger of the two training rooms.
The internal alterations are designed to improve the access to all facilities for disabled users. This includes an interlinking door between the two training rooms that is adequately dimensioned to allow for wheelchair users and new modern toilet facilities. The alterations also incorporate a separate `Wet Area’, a second disabled toilet and changing facilities to the rear of training room two.
This application also proposes a new external enclosed play area adjacent to the west elevation of the proposed building, measuring approximately 6900mm by 9900mm along its lengthiest boundary, and shall be enclosed with 2100mm high security fencing. The area shall be accessed externally from the adjacent footpath and will be for the use of the Community Centre only. The creation of a separate play area for the younger age group provides a secure and supervised environment, whilst the usability of the existing playing fields and playground remains unaffected. Despite the proposed play area being located relatively close to the residential properties to the rear of the Community Centre it is anticipated that there will be no additional noise disturbance, as the under-five year olds already use the existing main play-area.
In conclusion this is a significantly reduced scheme to that already approved in 2002 and whilst these alterations may seem relatively minor in comparison the cumulative impact of the development would provide various benefits for the local community. The sole objective of this scheme is to improve disabled access to the building and to provide a more flexible internal layout to ensure a wide range of activities can be successfully catered for. This scheme achieves that objective and therefore Members are advised that this application is one that can be supported.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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 67
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: -
1. Standard three year consent. 2. Use as per approved plans. 3. Details of the porch construction and all new external finishes to the development to be agreed. 4. Details of all boundary treatment, including fencing, to be agreed. 5. Details of all new surfacing treatments, including the external floor treatment of the play area and associated paving. 6. Details of proposed screening and landscaping around the play area. 7. Hours of use condition for the external play area. 8. Hours of work condition.
Page 68
This page is intentionally left blank Page 69 Agenda Item 17
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
19 December 2005 05/01363/FUL A17 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
APPLICATION TO VARY CONDITION 5 OF 63 NORTH ROAD PERMISSION 99/00879/FUL TO ALLOW LANCASTER EXTENSION OF OPENING HOURS LANCASHIRE LA1 1LU APPLICANT: AGENT:
J D Wetherspoon Hepher Dixon C/o Agent
REASON FOR DELAY
None
PARISH NOTIFICATION
None
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
The property lies within the City Centre boundary and is designated as an Other Key Retail Frontage as part of the Lancaster District Local Plan. The premises also lie adjacent to a Primary Bus Corridor and a Strategic Cycle Network.
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
Police - They have agreed that all licensing activity must cease at 0200 hours with an additional 30 minutes to clear the premises. The terminal hour must be in line with this stipulation, and no later. Environmental Health Service - No objections. Conservation - No comments.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
None
REPORT
This application relates to the Wetherspoons public house known as `The Green Ayre’, located on the corner of North Road at its junction with Damside Street.
Planning permission was granted in November 1999 for a food and drink (restaurant/bar) outlet. Condition number 5 on that consent stated that the hours of opening should not exceed 0800-0000 hours on any day.
Page 70
This application seeks to vary that condition and extend the hours of use to the following times: -
• Sunday to Thursday 0700 to 0100 (with alcohol sales ceasing at 0030); • Friday to Saturday 0700-0230 (with alcohol sales ceasing at 0200); • Christmas Eve, Boxing Day and New Year’s Eve 0700-0230 (with alcohol sales ceasing at 0200); • Thursday before Good Friday and Sundays before Bank Holidays 0700-0130 (with alcohol sales ceasing at 0100); • All four National Saint’s Days, Burns Night and Australia Day 0700-0200 if the day falls between Sunday-Thursday or 0700-0330 if it falls on a Friday or Saturday (with alcohol sales ceasing at 0130 and 0300 respectively).
The applicant states that the extension of hours would reflect the less restrictive Licensing Act 2003.
It is true that the Licensing Act is the most appropriate legislation for considering extensions to hours. However in planning terms we must consider the potential impact upon the streetscene, the effect upon residential amenity and the potential for additional anti-social behaviour.
Impact upon Streetscene
This area of the city contains a number of retail outlets and hot food takeaway uses. The public house use is already established and the addition of extra hours would not necessarily harm the streetscene. This area of North Road is already well-used by pub and nightclub customers, and the presence of the nearby takeaways ensures that people are already ‘milling around’ the application site. It is therefore considered that there is no additional impact upon streetscene.
Impact upon Residential Amenity
Only 58a North Road appears on the electoral register as being in residential use, and this property has been empty for some time. This property does not adjoin the premises in question. Given the number and nature of the uses nearby, and the late opening hours of the takeaways within the immediate vicinity, it is anticipated that the extension of hours is acceptable in principle. However opening until 0330 hours on some Fridays and Saturdays as stipulated has the potential to detrimentally affect residential amenity to 58a, particularly given that this will lead to a much later dispersal time from within the area.
Potential for Anti-Social Behaviour
The Police are broadly in support of the application, but have advised that the hours proposed would not accord with the licensing agreement reached with JD Wetherspoons. They have stated that the application can be supported if the hours of opening are amended to the following: -
• 0700-0130 Monday to Sunday (with the serving of alcohol commencing at 0900 and ceasing at 0100); • 0700-0230 Monday to Sunday (with alcohol serving between 0900-0200) on all the specified days (Christmas Eve, Boxing Day, Burns Night, Australia Day, all four National Saint’s Days, Thursday before Good Friday and Sundays before Bank Holiday Mondays); • In addition 15 `non-specified extension days’ can take place at no more than 15 occasions in a calendar year on the proviso that 10 working days notice is provided to both the Police and the Licensing Authority, and that both bodies give their consent.
These hours are not far removed from the hours usually given to nightclubs under the previous licensing regime. It is therefore considered that they are appropriate extensions given the city centre location.
The applicant’s agent has provided written agreement to the amended hours and the application should now be considered on this basis. Page 71
New Year’s Eve
New Year’s Eve presents a different problem. The Police have advised that at present Wetherspoons could theoretically open through the night due to rights approved under the old Act. This would effectively permit a 36-hour opening period from 1100 hours on New Year’s Eve.
However the client has indicated that a closing time of 0230 only is required on New Year’s Eve, and it would be prudent to condition the opening hours on this basis to tie the date into the other ‘specified’ days.
Conclusion
The premises have operated successfully as a public house and this application effectively proposes a maximum extension of two and a half hours. Taking the location, the nature of the surrounding uses and the recent licensing legislature changes into account, this is an appropriate extension supported by the Police.
Members are advised that the application, as amended, can be supported.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal that appear 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED TO VARY THE PLANNING CONDITION subject to the following conditions: -
1. Standard three year consent 2. Amended plans condition 3. Use as per approved plans 4. Opening hours to be limited to: -
0700-0130 Monday to Sunday (with the serving of alcohol commencing at 0900 and ceasing at 0100);
0700-0230 Monday to Sunday (with alcohol serving between 0900-0200) on all the specified days (Christmas Eve, Boxing Day, New Year’s Eve, Burns Night, Australia Day, all four National Saint’s Days, Thursday before Good Friday and Sundays before Bank Holiday Mondays);
ADVICE
The `non-specified extension days’ shall be agreed with both the Police and the Licensing Authority in advance in accordance with the licensing regulations.
Page 72
This page is intentionally left blank Page 73 Agenda Item 18
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
24 November 2005 05/01159/OUT A18 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR BAY HORSE GARAGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ABBEYSTEAD LANE DOLPHINHOLME LANCASHIRE LA2 9AQ APPLICANT: AGENT:
M Rogerson Trevor Hobday C/o Agent
REASON FOR DELAY
Awaiting consultation responses
PARISH NOTIFICATION
No objections
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Lancaster District Local Plan - The site is within a Countryside Area
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
County Highways - observations awaited City Engineers - no objections
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
One letter of support received from a neighbour
REPORT
This site is located at the cross roads junction of Wagon Road and Anyan Lane with Chipping Road, opposite the Fleece Hotel. It is a roughly rectangular site of about 0.25 ha. containing a motor vehicle repair and sales garage. Adjacent, to the north west lies a bungalow, whilst to the south west, on the opposite side of the junction lies three small cottages. The site and the road junction are otherwise surrounded by open countryside.
This site is a long established rural employment site providing a valuable service to the local community. The evidence has been provided to suggest that the site has been marketed for continued use or for any other appropriate rural employment purpose. As it stands therefore, this proposal which is an outline application to redevelop the site for residential purposes would clearly conflict with Policy EC16 of the Local District Local Plan. It would also be contrary to the normal settlement policies in the Local and Structure Plan to resist unwanted development outside the main settlements in the rural area. Page 74
No information regarding the likely form of or need for the proposed redevelopment has been submitted. The principle of the erection of unjustified residential units on this isolated site in the rural area would therefore conflict the policy provisions and the interests of sustainability and would set a strong precedent for further unnecessary residential development on isolated sites throughout the rural area.
It is considered therefore that this proposal should be resisted.
HUMAN RIGHTS
It is recognised that a recommendation of refusal may result in an interference with the applicant's right to develop their land in accordance with the Human Rights Act. However, on the facts of this case it is considered both necessary and proportionate to control development in the public interest in light of the concerns set out in this report and for the stated reasons.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-
1. Conflict with Policy H8 of the Local Plan and the adopted Structure Plan – unjustified development in countryside area 2. Conflict with Policy EC16 - loss of rural employment site 3. Conflict with SPG16 - Phasing of residential development 4. Unsustainable, sporadic development in the rural area 5. Precedent Page 75 Agenda Item 19
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
28 November 2005 05/01290/FUL A19 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
CHANGE FO USE OF BOWLAND NORTH LANCASTER UNIVERSITY FROM PART OFFICE, PART BAILRIGG ACCOMMODATION TO FULLY OFFICE LANCASTER AND ERECTION OF 3 SINGLE STOREY LANCASHIRE EXTENSIONS
APPLICANT: AGENT:
Mr John Pye Mr Gavin Gillson Lancaster University Alexandra Square Bailrigg Lancaster LA1 4YW
REASON FOR DELAY
Awaiting further information
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Not applicable
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Lancaster District Local Plan - This site is within the area allocated for University purposes
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
County Highways - No objection - Existing Travel Plan obligations to be implemented before this development is brought into use Chief Engineer - Observations awaited. Environmental Health Officer - No objection
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
No representations received
REPORT
This site is a range of existing three storey buildings located at the centre of the northern section of the main campus and arranged around two internal quadrangles. The ground floor is at present teaching accommodation, while the eastern side and majority of floors B and C are academic offices and the western minority side are vacant student accommodation. The site is surrounded by other existing development of a similar scale and style. Page 76
This proposal is a full application to change the use of the student accommodation to academic offices, to erect three small porch extensions within the internal quadrangles and to refurbish the buildings generally.
The purpose of the proposal is to relocate and concentrate academic departments and staff together, over the central teaching facility on the ground floor. This will improve efficiency and provide a better working environment for both staff and students rather than having these facilities scattered all over the campus as at present. No new staff will be involved and there will be no change to the existing parking needs or arrangements. These are, in any case, subject to the obligations of the existing University Travel Plan.
These proposals are therefore very much an internal re-organisation of existing accommodation, taking advantage of the opportunities presented by the re-development of student accommodation across the campus generally.
Refurbishment will be mainly internal, with some replacement of window frames and three new entrance porches to match the style of the building in the internal quadrangles.
This scheme does not raise any significant land use planning or design issues and can therefore be supported.
HUMAN RIGHTS
This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
1. Standard full permission (3 years) 2. Amended plans (28 October 2005) 3. Development and use in accordance with submitted details Page 77 Agenda Item 20
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
27 September 2005 05/01038/CU A20 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF MORECAMBE COMMUNITY EDUCATION FORMER EDUCATION CENTRE TO 22 CENTRE APARTMENTS AND EMOLITION OF POULTON ROAD ANNEXE BUILDING TO CREATE CAR MORECAMBE PARKING AREA LANCASHIRE LA4 5HA APPLICANT: AGENT:
Glenroyd Developments Christopher Rodgers 12 Palais Buildings Liverpool Road Burscough L40 5TN
REASON FOR DELAY
Formal `listing’ of the Poulton Road - Art and Technical School by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on 25 August 2005. In addition, awaiting further information requested by consultees.
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Morecambe Neighbourhood Council - The committee is opposed to the development on the grounds that this building is under consideration for `listing’ and should not be determined until the outcome of the listing considerations. In addition, a principle objection is raised to the development on the grounds that there are sufficient consents for residential units within Morecambe.
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Within the Morecambe Conservation Area and The Central Poulton Area of Morecambe, as defined in the Lancaster District Local Plan. No specific proposals for the site.
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
Head of Engineering - No objections in principle to the redevelopment of the Education Centre for residential use, however, concerns are raised over the intensification of the use of the existing car parking and together with suggested amendments to improve the vehicle access arrangements. Environment Agency - Identifies that the site is partially within the Flood Zone 3 and on the Edge of the Flood Zone 2 flood risk areas. Planning guidance dictates that application for site falling within flood risk area should be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and no such assessment has been provided, a formal objection has therefore been raised. A flood risk assessment has now been provided following consultation with the Environment Agent and the Environment Agency has withdrawn it’s objection to the scheme as the flood risk assessment has demonstrated that the proposed development would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding, or increase flooding elsewhere.
Page 78
It is also recommended that the range of mitigation measure identified in the assessment be implemented as part of the redevelopment of the site. Environmental Health Services - The development is located within a residential area and redevelopment of the site is likely to give rise to adverse impact. Suggest conditions to mitigate such impact include construction hours and details of flues/extraction systems. In addition suggested advice over dust control within the site. Lancashire County Council - (Archaeology) Identifies that the building has recently become a Grade II listed building. It is a well-preserved example of Edwardian Baroque educational architecture and it is recommended that an archaeological record of the building is made prior to any works being undertaken on the redevelopment of the site. City Contract Services - The site has historically been serviced for refuse collection from the link footpath to the north of the site. A bin storage enclosure will be required which is capable of housing 22 wheelie bins plus recycling boxes or four 1280 litre bins and space for recycling boxes. United Utilities - No objections to the proposals. Strategic Housing - Concerns over the bedroom sizes in elation to a number of the flats. Objection overcome by the submission of revised plans. English Heritage - Views awaited Lancashire Constabulary - Views awaited
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
To date two letters of objection have been received, one from a local resident and the other from the Ward Councillor, Cllr Evelyn Archer. The main grounds for objection are as follows: -
• The area is to be too intensively developed • There is already too much residential development within the area • No demand for 22 apartments within the area • Questioning the tenure of the proposed flats • Strong concerns that the conversion of the building to residential use undermine the character of the building and lead to a loss of valuable features within the interior of the building
REPORT
Site and its Surroundings
The application site relates to the Poulton Road Art and Technical School and is bounded by Green Street, Clarence Street and Poulton Road. A cleared area known as Fisherman’s Square lies along the north western boundary of the main site. In addition, the development also includes the college annex which was a former gymnasium detached from the main building site to the south of Clarence Street. The main building is three storeys (including basement) in height built in Edwardian baroque style of glazed red Accrington brick with stone dressing under a Lakeland slate roof. The building has recently been included on the list of Building of Special Architectural or Historic Interest by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in August 2005.
The annexe building is of a later construction, a tall single storey construction of red facing brick under a slate roof. The remaining land enclosed with this detached plot has been used as a car parking area associated with the college staff. The neighbouring properties are predominantly residential terraced properties of two and three storeys height.
The proposal
The proposal seeks consent for the conversion of the main Art and Technical school building into 22 flats and the demolition of the detached annexe building to create a car parking area for 22 spaces. The redevelopment of the main building seeks to convert the majority of the lower and ground floors of the building into 11 generously sized two bed maisonettes and 4 one bedroom flats. Page 79
The upper floor of the building is to be converted into 4 two bedroom flats and 3 one bedroom flats, again all of which enjoy generous proportions including the development of a two bedded unit to the front of the building which incorporates two balconies, one on each side of the building.
Planning History
The site has a very limited planning history relating to the former use as an adult education centre.
Planning Policy Position
It is considered this planning application needs to be measured against a number of policies relating to Flood Risk (E11), development within a conservation area (E35, E36, and E39), development affecting a listed building (E33), Housing (H21, H23 and SPG 16 - The Phasing of Residential Development) and open space provision (R11).
Flood Risk
The development site has been identified as lying partially within the Flood Zone 3 and on the edge of the Flood Zone 2 flood risk areas. As such consideration needs to be given to the impact of the development upon the risk of flooding both within the development and the wider impact from developing the site. The applicant’s, through consultation with the Environment Agency (EA), have developed a flood risk assessment to address concerns raised by the EA. The EA have concluded following submission of the flood risk assessment that it demonstrates that the proposed development would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding, or increase flooding elsewhere. It is also recommended that the range of mitigation measures identified in the assessment be implemented as part of the redevelopment of the site.
Development within a Conservation Area
The application site lies within the Morecambe Conservation Area. Policies E35, E36 and E39 are all protectionist in nature seeking to ensure that any development does not impact upon the views into and across the conservation area, any change of use to an existing building preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area, ensuring that alterations and demolition are minimised.
In general, the external alterations to the main Art and Technical School building are very limited. The proposed conversion sees only the introduction of one additional window, a small number of amendments to existing windows and the introduction of rooflights in positions that are not publicly visible. Some new construction works will need to be provided including the provision of an external refuse storage area and the introduction of low key flood mitigation measures, it is considered that, in principle, these will be acceptable and can be adequately controlled by a planning condition.
Whilst lying just outside the Morecambe Conservation Area, the annexe gymnasium building is to be totally demolished to allow the development of a 22 space car parking area. The annexe building is not listed and is not considered to be a critical building in the context of the setting of the conservation area or the character of the listed Art and Technical School. Comments have been raised by the Head of Engineering over the point of access onto the highway and the provision of adequate visibility splays. However, it is considered that an adequate arrangement can be provided by the development of a revised access position and the appropriate boundary treatment.
Development affecting a Listed Building
Again, Policy E33 is protectionist in nature, seeking to ensure that only development which would not have an adverse effect upon the architectural or historic character of the building or its surroundings is
Page 80
approved. This does not mean that the redevelopment must be resisted. There is also a duty imposed on planning authorities to find new, economic uses for Listed buildings to avoid them falling into decay.
Housing and The Phasing of Residential Development
Policy H21 of the Lancaster District Local Plan states that proposals for the development of or conversion of buildings to self contained flats will be permitted where they comply with the standards set out in the Local Plan. These require that all flats should be fully self-contained. They also recommend minimum floorspace for various rooms and require that the habitable rooms should have a reasonable outlook and a convenient internal layout. It is a requirement that satisfactory arrangements should be made for the storage of waste bins. As indicated earlier in the report the flats are of a generous size and are considered to meet the criteria defined within Annexe 2 flat Conversions of the Lancaster District Local Plan. Additional conditions will be needed to ensure the provision of a suitable refuse storage area which is of sufficient size to service the development and of a design to complement its setting, adjacent to a listed building.
The application lies within the Central Poulton Area, policy H23 identifies The Central Poulton Area of Morecambe, as an area where physical improvements such as street environment enhancement, provision of new open space and development of limited new housing is to be encouraged. The policy specifically supports the redevelopment of vacant shops and commercial premises to housing.
In addition, the proposal has also to be assessed in relation to SPG16 (The Phasing of Residential Development) which addresses the issue of a three year supply of consents for residential accommodation within the district. The SPG recognises the present over supply of residential consents within the District as a whole and seeks to limit the number of consents in the short terms to those located within the main urban areas and which provide clear local benefits (Category A sites). Local benefits can take a number of different forms including aiding regeneration, bringing derelict land into use, completing phases of development, bring beneficial use to listed buildings or conservation areas and meeting local needs housing.
The application site is clearly in a sustainable urban location and is currently a vacant listed building without an end use and is located within the Morecambe Conservation Area and the Poulton regeneration area. It is considered that the development falls within the definition of a Category A site and meets the criteria for residential conversion set out within SPG 16.
Open Space Provision
Policy R11 and Appendix 1 - Provision for play in New Housing seeks to ensure that new housing provides open space and children’s play areas to serve the local area. The appendix also identifies that in exceptional circumstances a commuted sum can be provide in lieu of the land and equipment provision. This application site is very restricted seeking to convert the existing building which has limited external areas. The external spaces around the building are impractical for use as a play area both in size and layout. The annexe building is detached from the main conversion site but will be wholly utilised in the creation of a self sufficient car parking area to serve the new residential units.
Outside and immediately to the north of the application site is an area of land known as Fisherman’s Square. The land currently has a tarmacadam finish following demolition of the Morecambe Trawlers building and is being used for ad hoc parking by local residents and contractors working on housing regeneration projects in the area. The area has been identified within SPG 15 Poulton Spatial Strategy as having the potential to become a key open space within a `Core Pedestrian Route’ which would provide a footpath link from the shoreline inland. One of the specific measures proposed to improve open space provision in the area is seen as `The development of a `Fisherman’s Square’ in the Green Street/ Lines Street/ Clarence Street/ Deansgate area, possibly involving selective demolition, to provide a major new open space and a key element of the Core Pedestrian Route.
Page 81
It is considered that given the lack of any practical external space within the site for the development of an open space, the provision of a contribution towards the development of the Fisherman’s Square immediately adjacent to the application site is an acceptable approach. The applicant has already indicated a willingness to provide a contribution and a figure of £30,000 has been agreed upon.
Comments
Redevelopment of this site for residential use has raised a number of policy issues which have been considered and addressed. The precise details of the conversion will need to be the subject of careful control and detailed conditioning. However, a number of questions have been raised in respect of the approach to be taken by the developers in converting the building and following discussions between the applicant and the local planning authority a number of the key issues have been addressed in principle.
External alterations: - These are to be kept to a minimum. It has been agreed with the developer that the existing softwood windows are to remain in place and be supplemented by the provision of internal secondary glazing. The redevelopment requires very limited alteration to the external fenestration.
The heating system is to be electric heating with non-vented hot water. Only mechanical ventilation will be required and flues through the roof space will achieve this. Overall, the external structure will have little intrusion and the setting of the building will be maintained.
Internal alterations: - The applicant has confirmed that the design approach will be to maintain, where possible existing flooring, tiles and other features. This is particularly important as they are noted in the listing description. The flooring and tiles within the main communal areas are to be remain visible but it is anticipated that the timber floors to the residential units will be carpeted over. Some timber flooring will inevitably be lost within the maisonettes in introducing staircases between floors but this is area is relatively small in relation to the overall floor area of the building. It is proposed to maintain where possible all the original doors and ironmongery, although some areas will be affected in introducing up to date fire protection, a problem with any reuse of the building.
It understood that improvements to the soundproofing of the building will be able to be untaken with little intrusion into the fabric of the building as the existing floor to ceiling heights will allow the introduction of additional soundproofing measures without disturbance to the floors.
The applicant has indicated that the subdivision of the existing classrooms into residential units will again involve little intrusion into the fabric of the building. The creation of the individual unit closely reflects the existing classroom subdivisions and the introduction of the individual rooms will be undertaken in metal framing and plaster boarding. Tiling and other features, which are not considered to be desirable in certain areas, will remain intact and be covered over.
The roof of the building is presently deteriorating with some leaking and damage already occurring on the upper floor. In converting, the building will be reroofed incorporating thermal upgrade and full refurbishment and the roofing slates.
Concerns have been raised that there are too many new residential units being proposed within Poulton and the area is generally being over developed. However, development of this site for residential use accords with general housing policy, the constraints of SPG 16 and the supportive nature of Poulton regeneration polices which actively seek to encourage the conversion of vacant commercial buildings into residential use. These views have to be balanced against the general restraint being placed on other parts of the District to target investment in Morecambe.
In addition, consideration must be given to the long-term life of the existing building. It is currently vacant and redundant as far as the current owners are concerned. The property is already in need of some repair and is subject to regular vandalism which is currently being repaired on a regular basis.
Page 82
Conclusion
Overall, It is considered that the proposal represents an opportunity to safeguard the form, setting and character of this recently `listed `building by its sensitive conversion to residential use. Development of a scheme of this nature will help to raise confidence in the Poulton Area in general and will encourage potential further investment in the area. Subject to no significant objections being raised by the consultees, introduction of the conditions outlined earlier in the report and entry into a Section 106 Agreement to secure a commuted sum, the application should be supported.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IMPLICATIONS
This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That subject to entry into a Section 106 agreement to secure the contribution of a commuted sum that PERMISSION BE GRANTED with the following conditions: -
1. Standard 3 year time limit. 2. Development to be built in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Amended flat layout dated 17 August 2005 4. Precise details of the following to be agreed: - - Fenestration repair, replacement and upgrade. - Refuse storage area, including construction details of the enclosure. - Boundary details to the annexe site including access provision and maintenance of visibility sight lines. - Extraction and flue systems - Internal finishes including the maintenance of internal fixtures and fittings. - Fire protection and soundproofing construction. - Protection of internal features, including tiling timber flooring, fireplaces, doors and ironmongery. - Construction and finishes to the internal subdivisions - Repointing and stone cleaning measures 5. Details of the flood mitigation measures to be agreed and implemented. 6. New window detail to match existing including opening construction and set back. 7. Cast iron railings to the Art and Technical School to be repaired insitu and overall colour scheme to be agreed. 8. Rooflights to be conservation type of low profile EDN flashing. 9. Repair or replacement of rain water goods to be undertaken in matching materials and design. 10. Archaeological building recoding and analysis to be undertaken prior to works being commenced on site. 11. Hours of construction 12. As required by the consultees.
ADVICE
1. Dust control measures 2. Property numbering Page 83 Agenda Item 21
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
10 November 2005 05/01204/LB A21 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR MORECAMBE COMMUNITY EDUCATION CONVERSION TO 22 APARTMENTS AND CENTRE INSTALLATION OF ONE NEW WINDOW POULTON ROAD MORECAMBE LANCASHIRE LA4 5HA APPLICANT: AGENT:
Glenroyd Developments Christopher Rodgers Unit 12 Palais Building Liverpool Road North Burscough L40 5TN
REASON FOR DELAY
Awaiting additional information
PARISH NOTIFICATION
N/A
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Within the Morecambe Conservation Area, as defined in the Lancaster District Local Plan. No specific proposals for the site.
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage - Views awaited Environment Agency - Strongly recommend that a Flood Risk Assessment be implemented as part of any redevelopment of the site
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
None to date any comments will be reported to committee
REPORT
This application is the listed building application in respect of the previous committee agenda item for a proposed conversion of the former Art and Technical School at Poulton Road into 22 flats.
Page 84
The background to both applications and the comments have been addressed in the earlier agenda item. The proposals have not raised any significant issue in respect of the setting/character of the listed building and subject to appropriate conditions it is considered that the application should be supported.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IMPLICATIONS
This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED for the following reasons: -
1. Standard 3 year time limit. 2. Development to be built in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Amended flat layout dated 17 August 2005 4. Precise details of the following to be agreed: - - Fenestration repair, replacement and upgrade. - Refuse storage area, including construction details of the enclosure. - Boundary details to the annexe site including access provision and maintenance of visibility sight lines. - Extraction and flue systems - Internal finishes including the maintenance of internal fixtures and fittings. - Fire protection and soundproofing construction. - Protection of internal features, including tiling timber flooring, fireplaces, doors and ironmongery. - Construction and finishes to the internal subdivisions - Repointing and stone cleaning measures 5. Details of the flood mitigation measures to be agreed and implemented. 6. New window detail to match existing including opening construction and set back. 7. Cast iron railings to the Art and Technical School to be repaired insitu and overall colour scheme to be agreed. 8. Rooflights to be conservation type of low profile EDN flashing. 9. Repair or replacement of rain water goods to be undertaken in matching materials and design. 10. Archaeological building recording and analysis to be undertaken prior to works being commenced on site. 11. Hours of construction 12. As required by the consultees. Page 85 Agenda Item 22
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
4 January 2006 05/01432/OUT A22 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
RENEWAL OF APPLICATION HALTON MILL 00/00920/OUT FOR PROPOSED MILL LANE REDEVELOPMENT INCLUDING HALTON DEMOLITION OF EXISTING MILL, ERECT LANCASHIRE HOUSES, INDUSTRIAL UNITS, CONSTRUCT NEW ACCESS AND PROVISION OF ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING
APPLICANT: AGENT:
Time And Tide Properties Ltd Phillips Planning Services Ltd C/o Agent
REASON FOR DELAY
N/A
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Response will be reported to Committee
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Land identified in the Lancaster District Local Plan as a Rural Employment Opportunity site - see report below
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
Head of Engineering - Reply will be reported to Committee - no objections to previous approval subject to conditions County Highways - Reply will be reported to Committee - no objections to previous approval subject to conditions Environment Agency - Previously agreed to original outline and all subsequent details to date. United Utilities - Object on the grounds of capacity problems but did not raise objections to previous outline approval
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
Any neighbour responses will be reported to Committee. Page 86
REPORT
Site History
Most Members of Committee will be fully aware of the background into the development of this site.
Briefly this stretch of the riverside frontage close to Halton village is allocated in the Lancaster District Local Plan as a Rural Employment Opportunity site.
The policy envisages a comprehensive employment based mixed use scheme including improved access and public open space opportunities. It recognises that some housing will be necessary to provide funds to facilitate the development.
There were two original outline planning consents covering the whole site:-
1. Application No. 00/00920/OUT covers the western half and was for the erection of housing, commercial units together with associate highways and open space.
2. Application No. 01/01128/OUT covers the eastern half of the site and includes further commercial development and a large area of live/work units together with associated works and highways.
This current submission is a renewal application for the first of these applications, No. 00/00920/OUT. Partial reserved matters have been submitted and approved for both of the above outline permissions. It should also be noted that work has now commenced on site. Construction of the new access road from Low Road, together with the first of the replacement new industrial units (for Elro products) are now under way. A copy of the original Committee report for Application No. 00/00920/OUT is attached for information.
More importantly considerable progress has now been made on the replacement new outline consent application No. 04/01117/OUT. Members will recall that this is a new replacement outline permission covering the whole of the development site. This application is intended to replace the two original consents. It provides for the same general range and mix of uses (although it increases the commercial floorspace) but in a more logical and ordered fashion. This application was supported by the Planning Committee and approved in principle in December of last year. It was possible because the site is now in a single ownership and the revised scheme has significant advantages for the Council and the local community as well as the developer.
A number of different issues remained to be resolved before any decision could be issued. These included arrangements for affordable housing, transport contributions and the occupancy and design of the live/work units. These were to be dealt with via conditions and a planning agreement. Following difficult and protracted negotiations, agreement has been reached on all the above issues and a new Section 106 Agreement is being prepared. It is anticipated this will be signed and the decision notice issued within the next few weeks. Once it is issued the historical consents will become largely redundant and the development will proceed in accordance with the principles of the new outline.
The Current Application
As mentioned above, the current submission is for a renewal of one of the original outline Application No. 00/00920/OUT. The background is fully detailed in the preceding section but in effect this renewal is to safeguard the applicants current position. They cannot afford to let the old consent time expire in case there are any last minute hitches with the replacement consent. This would leave them in the vulnerable situation of having no earlier valid consent to fall back on. There is also an additional reason for renewal as having a current valid approval gives them some additional leverage in their discussions with statutory undertakers regarding the technical considerations for site development. Page 87
Conclusion
There has been no significant policy changes in circumstances since the original approval. The housing element of the development has been previously considered in terms of the housing restraint policy SPG16 and it was concluded that the overall development is an integral part of the Lancashire District Local Plan and the housing element is essential to bringing the overall development forward.
It is essential however that the Council safeguards its own position as well and permission is therefore recommended subject to the imposition of similar conditions to the previous approval and confirmation that the related existing Section 106 Agreement will continue to apply to the new scheme.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That subject to amendment to the current Section 106 Agreement (if necessary) regarding affordable housing, public open space and provision of industrial buildings PERMISSION BE GRANTED with the following conditions:-
1. Standard time (3 years). 2. Amended plans. 3. Reserved matter details to be submitted and approved. 4. Construction of access road to base course level. 5. Access road to adoptable standard. 6. Traffic calming measures on Low Road to be agreed. 7. Disposal of surface water drainage. 8. Minimum floor level height. 9. No trees or shrubs within 8 metres of river bank. 10. New footpaths to be provided along river frontage. 11. Protection of existing trees to be agreed. 12. No piling to be carried out without agreement of Local Planning Authority. 13. Full details of drainage layout to be agreed. 14. Drainage to be on a separate system. 15. Any measures to increase on site drainage capacity to be submitted and approved. Page 88
This page is intentionally left blank Page 89 Agenda Item 23
DECISION DATE APPLICATION NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE:
25 November 2005 05/01305/FUL A23 19 December 2005
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE ADDRESS
AMENDMENTS TO ELEVATIONS TO HALTON MILL HOUSING SCHEME APPROVED AS MILL LANE 04/01301/REM HALTON CARNFORTH LANCASHIRE LA5 8EU APPLICANT: AGENT:
Time And Tide Homes The Forge Mill Lane Lancaster LA2 6ND
REASON FOR DELAY
N/A
PARISH NOTIFICATION
Raised strong objection to original submission as too contemporary and raised heights across site. Views on amended plans awaited.
LAND USE ALLOCATION/DEPARTURE
Part of a Rural Employment Opportunity Area identified in the Lancaster District Local Plan. This part of the site has a current detailed consent for housing.
STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
None
OTHER OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
Three letters of objection have been received. Concerns are raised that the development is not in keeping with the existing village or environment and will have an adverse effect on the riverside. More general objections are raised to the principle of the development in that the village cannot support this level of development and it will spoil the attractive riverside area and views from the village. Page 90
REPORT
This application relates to a part of the Halton Mills developing site which runs alongside the river frontage at Halton. This area of the site which was occupied by the former Town End Mill has had detailed consent (under Application No. 04/01301/REM) for residential development comprising 47 houses and 27 apartments.
This current proposal relates only to amended elevational and roof treatment, together with alterations to the internal floor layout. The siting of dwellings and the layout of roads, footpaths, gardens and open space is unchanged.
The developers have appointed new Architects as they wanted to bring a more contemporary 'feel' to the new scheme. A copy of the Architects design statement is attached for Members information.
In general terms it is accepted that there is room for a more modern approach to the development in this location as it is removed from the historic core of the village but it was considered important to retain a traditional palette of materials. To this end agreement has been reached regarding the use of natural slate roofs and a mix of split faced stone and render to the walls. The roofscape has been tidied up although the mix of 2 and 3 storey dwellings remains as previously approved. Following extensive negotiations which have involved the Conversation Officer, a more contemporary approach has been agreed regarding the design and fenestration details, garage doors, balcony and conservatory treatments, together with the introduction of some modest areas of cedar boarding. Sketch elevations will be displayed at Committee to demonstrate these principles. Overall it is considered that the design approach is acceptable and will result in an attractive contemporary housing scheme overlooking the River Lune. It is anticipated final revised drawings will be available in time for the Committee meeting. Permission is therefore recommended subject to the agreement over the precise detailed finishes indicated below all as recommended by the Conservation Officer.
HUMAN RIGHTS
This application has to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 (privacy/family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Having regard to the principles of proportionality, it has been concluded that there are no issues arising from the proposal which appear 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED with the following conditions:-
1. Amended plans. 2. All conditions attached to 'parent' permission 04/01301 are still applicable to the development. 3. Samples of all external materials to be submitted or agreed. 4. Details coursing and mortar colour of stonework to be submitted and approved. 5. Pre-use details of windows including materials, head, cill, jamb and setback to be approved. 6. Details of eaves and verge treatment for roof to be approved. Page 91 Agenda Item 24
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972
List of Background Papers
Schedule of Planning Applications for Consideration by Planning Committee on 19 December 2005
For each of the planning applications being considered, the planning file, including any relevant correspondence, consultation and neighbour responses, is part of the relevant background papers.
More particularly, in addition to the above, the following documents are relevant: -
A5 Lancaster District Local Plan
A6 Lancaster District Local Plan
A7 Planning Applications 05/00559, 96/01110, 96/446 and 02/01179
A8 Planning Application 04/00267 Lancaster District Local Plan
A9 Lancaster District Local Plan
A10 Planning Application 04/00853 Lancaster District Local Plan
A11 Lancaster District Local Plan Planning Applications 04/00036/FUL and 04/00813/FUL
A12 Planning Application – 97/01014 Lancaster District Local Plan PPS7 – Sustainable Development In Rural Areas PPG13 – Transport
A13 Planning Application – 97/01014 Lancaster District Local Plan PPS7 – Sustainable Development In Rural Areas PPG13 – Transport
A14 Lancaster District Local Plan
A15 Lancaster District Local Plan
A16 Lancaster District Local Plan Planning Application – 02/00902/FUL
A17 Lancaster District Local Plan Planning Application – 99/00879/FUL
A18 Lancaster District Local Plan
A19 Lancaster District Local Plan Page 92
A20 Lancaster District Local Plan SPG16 – The Phasing of Residential Development SPG15 – Poulton Spatial Strategy
A21 Lancaster District Local Plan
A22 Planning Applications 00/00920/OUT, 01/01128/OUT and 04/01117/OUT
A23 Lancaster District Local Plan Planning Application – 04/01301/REM Page 93 Agenda Item 25 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 19 DECEMBER 2005
LANCASTER CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION NO DETAILS DECISION
05/00909/ADV Nazareth House, Ashton Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Retention of two advertising signs at the entrance for Nazareth House
05/00938/CU 23 Salford Road, Galgate, Lancashire Application Permitted Change of use of disused cart shed/byre with living accommodation over to a 2 bedroom dwelling for J and A James
05/01011/FUL Glendavian, Dykes Lane, Yealand Conyers Application Permitted Alterations and extensions (to former Stone Dykes property) partly implemented in line with consent 03/00143/FUL for Mr M Sands
05/01016/ELDC Meadowfields, Ashton Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for use of agricultural workers dwelling as a dwelling for Mrs P A Dickson
05/01046/FUL Sunderland Brow Farm, Sunderland Point, Overton Application Permitted Erection of a cattle building for Mr C Hargreaves and Son
05/01047/FUL Sweetings Farm, Sandside, Cockerham Application Permitted Alterations and extension to office/garage/store to form granny annexe for Mr and Mrs Lawson
05/01060/FUL 135 Cleveleys Avenue, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of two-storey extension to side with additional single-storey extensions to front and rear for C. B. Nolan-Barnes
05/01068/LB Green Garth, 19 Yealand Road, Yealand Conyers Application Permitted Listed building application for the installation of a satellite dish for Mr J P Calnan
05/01089/FUL 12a Stankelt Road, Silverdale Application Permitted Erection of extension to lower ground floor at rear and alterations to kitchen and balcony on ground floor to rear for Mrs L Lindup
05/01111/FUL Holiday Inn, Caton Road, Quernmore, Lancashire Application Permitted Extension of existing compound and re-position dehumidifier from roof to new larger compound for LRG Acquisitions Ltd
05/01130/FUL The Sherwood Building, Field Road, Heysham, Application Permitted Morecambe Erection of extension to loading area for CCG Ltd
Page 94 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 19 DECEMBER 2005
05/01143/FUL 10 Kingsmuir Close, Heysham, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of a two storey side extension and conservatory for Mr and Mrs J Turton
05/01147/FUL 28 Crofters Fold, Heysham Application Permitted Erection of an extension to the side for Mrs D Lee
05/01161/FUL 44 Marine Drive, Hest Bank, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of a two-storey side extension with first-floor balcony, and conservatory to rear for Mr And Mrs Stanwix
05/01162/FUL Summerhead, Abbeystead Lane, Abbeystead Application Permitted Erection of a side extension to form a sun lounge for J Cope
05/01197/FUL Lower Burrow, Tarnwater Lane, Ashton Application Permitted Erection of a garden room for Norman Jackson Contractors Ltd (Dave Tarburn)
05/01199/FUL 36 Sunnybank Road, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Application Refused Demolition of garage and erection of a two storey side extension for Mr and Mrs Woodhouse
05/01201/FUL 1 Wensley Drive, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of a two storey side extension to form garage with en-suite bedroom at first floor and construction of new vehicle and pedestrian access for Mr D Foot
05/01202/CU 33 Clarendon Road, Morecambe Application Permitted Change of use to form single dwelling house with partial demolition of 3 storey outrigger and new roof to rear kitchen for Beech Housing Association
05/01203/FUL 1 Chapel Gardens, Abbeystead Lane, Dolphinholme Application Permitted Replacement of windows and doors for Mr D Merritt
05/01205/FUL 55 Deanpoint, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Demolition of existing garage and erection of a single storey side extension and hall/store room to the front for Mr and Mrs S Middlesborough
05/01210/FUL 5 Westfield Hamlet, Nether Kellet, Carnforth Application Permitted Reduce the size of window to front elevation for Mr and Mrs Wilkinson
05/01213/FUL Greenacres, Hasty Brow Road, Slyne with Hest, Application Permitted Lancashire Erection of a bedroom and bathroom extension to the side for Mr and Mrs I Angus
05/01215/ELDC 16 Pedder Street, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Application for a certificate of lawful use for use of premises as hot food take away and restaurant with associated residential accommodation for Mr Tsun Ying Chen
Page 95 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 19 DECEMBER 2005
05/01216/FUL Woodlands Lodge, Kellet Road, Over Kellet Application Permitted Erection of a side extension to form dining room and kitchen and erection of a garage for Mr and Mrs Booth
05/01217/FUL 4 Whinnysty Lane, Heysham, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of a first floor extension to form 3 bedrooms, bathroom, etc and a conservatory to ground floor for Mr and Mrs Atherton
05/01221/FUL 136 Broadway, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of a rear conservatory for Mr And Mrs Dawson
05/01222/FUL 2 Bateman Grove, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of a two-storey side extension to form a garage and study with bedroom, bathroom/shower/dressing room over for Miss B Harkin
05/01223/LB Shire Hall The Flat The Castle, Castle Park, Lancaster Approved by Government Listed Building Application for the removal of vestibule Office NW doors and replacement with oak doors and sub frame for Lancashire County Council
05/01225/FUL 10 Lune View Caravan Park, Station Road, Halton Application Refused Erection of a conservatory to front for Mr F N Beck
05/01227/FUL Hawkshead, Mount Pleasant Lane, Bolton-le-Sands Application Permitted Erection of single storey extension at front and various alterations and refurbishment for Dr. Leck
05/01228/FUL 6 Wennington Road, Wray, Lancaster Application Permitted Erection of a ground floor extension to form utility room and W.C. and alterations to front door for Mr and Mrs Denby
05/01230/FUL 10 Lily Grove, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Refused Construction of a rear dormer extension for Mr and Mrs Warncok
05/01233/FUL 35 Yealand Avenue, Heysham, Morecambe Application Permitted Conversion of garage into lounge, car port to side, new porch to front and dormer roof extension to the rear for Mr and Mrs Sargent
05/01234/CU 40 - 41 Sandylands Promenade, Heysham, Morecambe Application Refused Retrospective application for the change of use and conversion of a single dwellinghouse into two dwellinghouses and a self-contained flat at basement level for Mr Toynbee
05/01235/FUL Trungs Chinese, 4 Main Road, Bolton-le-Sands Application Permitted Erection of a single-storey kitchen extension to rear for Mr and Mrs T V Ly
05/01237/FUL 14 Levens Way, Silverdale, Carnforth Application Permitted Erection of a ground floor extension and creation of new vehicular access with new wall and gates for Mr R V Bailey
Page 96 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 19 DECEMBER 2005
05/01238/FUL 37 Barley Cop Lane, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of a ground floor extensions to form kitchen and dining room and front porch for Mr and Mrs A Shepherd
05/01239/FUL 28 - 30 Regent Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Installation of new security roller shutters for C/o Agent
05/01241/FUL 25A Hest Bank Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of two storey side extension and alterations to roof for Mr J Christian
05/01242/FUL 95 Penny Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Modification of condition five on application 00/01171/CU to allow 24 hour opening for K J Dixon and E Y Samiloglu
05/01243/FUL 7 Gage Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of flue, duct extraction and fan to the rear for Mr Yau Wang Li
05/01246/FUL Unit 1, Southgate, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of an extension to existing industrial unit for Sherwood and Casson Ltd
05/01248/FUL 6 and 8 Fenton Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Redevelopment of offices and 14 numbered flats - external works and landscape planting for Mardon Plc
05/01249/FUL 28 Esthwaite Gardens, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Refused Construction of bridge at first floor linking dining room to garden for Mr and Mrs Metcalf
05/01250/LB 6 and 8 Fenton Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Listed building application for redevelopment of offices and 14 no flats - external works and landscape planting for Mardon PLC
05/01251/FUL 12 Thornton Crescent, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Retrospective application for the erection of a detached garage for Mr G Green
05/01254/CU Sandbeds Farm, Sandbeds Lane, Gressingham Application Permitted Change of use of 5 existing cow sheds to horse stables for Mr and Mrs P Lumb
05/01257/FUL Kingsway Retail Park, Parliament Street, Lancaster Application Permitted Retrospective application for a substation to serve new retail development and proposed residential development for Liberty Properties
05/01258/LB Kingsway Retail Park, Parliament Street, Lancaster Application Permitted Retrospective Listed Building application for a substation for Liberty Properties
05/01262/FUL The Smithy, The Green, Wennington Application Permitted Modification of condition five on application 03/00339/CU to allow use of building for holistic massage/related therapies together with existing uses as office and domestic storage for Mr and Mrs B R Rycroft
Page 97 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 19 DECEMBER 2005
05/01263/FUL 5 Queen Street, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Withdrawn Installation of new shop front for Darwen Carpets Ltd
05/01264/FUL 115 Beaufort Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Refused Erection of a conservatory to the rear for Mr C Nardone
05/01266/FUL 27 Lathom Avenue, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Construction of dormers to front and rear for Mr Ledgard
05/01267/FUL 44 Foxfield Avenue, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Refused Erection of a conservatory to rear for Mr and Mrs Kara
05/01270/FUL Westbourne House, Westbourne Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Relocation of play area for CFBT
05/01272/CU 11 Lune Drive, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Refused Change of use of land to form an extension to domestic curtilage and erection of a 2m high fence adjacent to a highway for Mr John Burgess
05/01275/FUL Westgate Medical Practice, Braddon Close, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of an extension to east elevation to provide consulting and trainers rooms with library and seminar room over for Drs Winfield, Grealy, Gartside And Maher
05/01277/FUL Homestead And Peters Cottage, Main Street, Wray Application Permitted Conversion of Homestead and Peters Cottage into one dwelling, creation of integral garage and two storey extension to rear for Moira Parker
05/01278/FUL 7 Middleton Road, Heysham, Morecambe Application Permitted Reduction in level of front garden to provide access from lower ground floor for Alex Howes and Laura Taylor
05/01279/FUL 39 Adelphi Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of a single storey rear extension and construction of a rear dormer for Mr Matthew Wiggins
05/01284/FUL Green Farm, Mewith Lane, Tatham Application Permitted Erection of a rear extension to form dining room with bedroom over for Mr M Harrison
05/01285/LB Green Farm, Mewith Lane, Tatham Application Permitted Listed Building application for the erection of a rear extension to form dining room with bedroom over for Mr M Harrison
05/01286/FUL 16 St Pauls Drive, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of a lounge extension to the rear for Mr and Mrs R Shuttleworth
05/01287/FUL Guys Farm Outdoor Centre, Gleaves Hill Lane, Ellel Application Permitted Provision of LPG tank, replace existing "Elsan" toilet facilities with new and modification of condition 5 on application 84/508 relating to the use of activity centre for Paul Hargreaves
05/01289/FUL 90 Bare Lane, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of a new detached garage to replace existing for Mr and Mrs Lord
Page 98 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 19 DECEMBER 2005
05/01291/FUL Ta Centre, Caton Road, Lancaster Application Refused Erection of one 22.5 mini macro column with six antenna together with equipment cabinets at the base of pole with 2.1m fence around site for 02 (UK) Ltd
05/01292/FUL 3 St Michaels Lane, Bolton-le-Sands Application Permitted Retention of a garage to replace existing for Kathryn E Queally
05/01294/CU Flat 1, 1 Wellington Terrace, Morecambe Application Permitted Change of use from an office to a two bedroomed flat for Lancashire County Council
05/01296/FUL 7 Beech Grove, Hest Bank, Slyne, Lancashire Application Permitted Retrospective application for car port to side for Mr P Melici
05/01297/CU St Chads Church, Farleton Old Road, Claughton Application Permitted Conversion of redundant Church into a single dwelling and construction of stone garden store for Thomas Associates Architects
05/01298/LB St Chads Church, Farleton Old Road, Claughton Application Permitted Listed Building Consent - Conversion of redundant Church into a single dwelling and construction of stone garden store for Thomas Associates Architects
05/01302/CU 31 Green Street, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Change of use from multiple-occupancy to single dwelling for Beech Housing Association
05/01307/FUL 4 Rothesay Road, Heysham, Morecambe Application Permitted Application to lower kerb and create driveway across grass verge and hardstanding to front of garden for Mr T Knowles
05/01308/FUL Avocado Research Chemicals Ltd, Field Road, Application Permitted Heysham Erection of storage building. for Avacado Research Chemicals Ltd
05/01309/FUL 68 Sunnybank Road, Bolton Le Sands, Carnforth Application Permitted Erection of kitchen/sitting room extension to the rear and detached garage with study/playroom for Mr and Mrs Storey
05/01310/CU 26A Endsleigh Grove, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Refused Continuation of use of land to form extension to residential garden for Mrs J Bennett
05/01311/FUL 49 Marine Drive, Hest Bank, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of extension to first floor bedroom and extension to single garage to form a double garage for Mr and Mrs P Jackson
05/01313/FUL 53 Yorkshire Street West, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of rear extension to shop and escape stair from first floor for Morecambe Business Services
Page 99 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 19 DECEMBER 2005
05/01314/CU 44 Regent Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Demolition of garage and erection of new double garage, conversion into single dwelling with rear extension and cellar converted to office for A Hutchinson / A Philip
05/01315/FUL Top Barn, Shore Road, Silverdale Application Permitted Erection of extensions to form study, garage/workshop, and provide first floor accommodation for Dr and Mrs G Turnbull
05/01317/FUL 21 Brantwood Avenue, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Refused Erection of a single-storey kitchen extension and a conservatory to rear for Mr J Gunson
05/01318/FUL 25 Bay View Avenue, Hest Bank, Slyne Application Permitted Construction of rear dormer extensions for S Drake
05/01319/CU 183 Lancaster Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Retention of change of use from shop to residential for Mr M Metcalfe
05/01320/FUL 406 Heysham Road, Heysham, Morecambe Application Permitted Alterations to first floor and erection of a store for Abdul Ahad
05/01323/FUL 5 Elmsdale Close, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of two storey side extension to form kitchen and sitting room with bedroom and shower-room over for Mr and Mrs Robinson
05/01324/FUL Hunters Moon, Haverbreaks Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Erection of a single storey extension to rear for Mr and Mrs Lennox
05/01325/FUL 15 Swaledale, Galgate, Lancaster Application Permitted Erection of a rear conservatory for Mr and Mrs Dunkerly
05/01328/FUL Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Ashton Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Laying of a concrete base and siting of a medical gas cylinder for Morecambe Bay NHS Trust
05/01330/CU Woodgate, Heaton With Oxcliffe, Lancashire Application Permitted Change of use to vehicle rental depot for Autotravel Limited
05/01333/FUL 9 Brentlea Avenue, Heysham, Morecambe Application Permitted Erection of single-storey extension to rear for Mrs Phillips
05/01339/FUL 12 Toll Bar Crescent, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of kitchen and utility room extension to the rear for Mr and Mrs Warburton
05/01340/FUL Mill Hall, Moor Lane, Lancaster Application Permitted Installation of laser data communication equipment on gable end at high level for St Martins College
05/01341/FUL Rear Of 58 Wellington Road, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Continuation of use of storage building for joinery workshop for Mr D Townley
Page 100 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 19 DECEMBER 2005
05/01344/FUL Field 4900 Hazelrigg Lane Scotforth Lancashire, Littlefell Application Permitted Lane, Quernmore Erection of a sand paddock enclosed by post and rail fence for Mrs S Dewhirst
05/01345/FUL 9 Buckingham Grove, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Construction of a pitched roof over flat roof and conversion of loft to bedroom and en suite for Alan Webber Esq
05/01347/FUL 4 Downes Grove, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of a conservatory at rear for Mr and Mrs A Clegg
05/01348/FUL 1 Docker Lane, Newton Road, Whittington Application Permitted Erection of a two storey extension to provide garage, utility room, kitchen, bedroom with en-suite and loft room for Mr and Mrs Penfold
05/01349/FUL 391 - 393 Marine Road East, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Alterations to entrance canopies for Norman Jackson Contractors Ltd
05/01352/CU 14 Royalty Mall, Morecambe, Lancashire Change of use Application Permitted of unit to cafe servery and mall seating area for BB's Coffee and Muffins Ltd
05/01353/FUL 7 Hatlex Drive, Hest Bank, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of garage to replace existing garage for Charles and Marjorie Udall
05/01356/FUL Aspleys Farm, Lancaster Road, Thurnham Application Permitted Erection of an agricultural building (retrospective application) for RJ and M Ayrton And Son
05/01364/FUL Westfield Barn, Langthwaite Road, Lancaster Application Permitted Alterations and conversion of stable block to form "granny" flat annexe for Mr and Mrs K H Stephenson
05/01367/FUL 20 Hest Bank Lane, Hest Bank, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of extension to side and rear for Mr and Mrs E Livermore
05/01368/FUL 6 The Roods, Warton, Carnforth Application Permitted Erection of a conservatory to the rear for Mr and Mrs Johnstone
05/01369/FUL 2 Mulberry Lane, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of a conservatory to the rear for Mr and Mrs Owen
05/01371/CON Former Greaves Park Nursery School, Bowerham Road, Application Permitted Lancaster Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of buildings and removal of oil tank for Lancashire County Council
05/01372/FUL 2 Farmdale Road, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of single storey extension to the side and construction of dormer windows to front and rear for Mr R Clark and Ms T Robinson
Page 101 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS 19 DECEMBER 2005
05/01375/LB Mill Hall, Moor Lane, Lancaster Application Permitted Listed Building Application for installation of laser data communication equipment on gable end at high level for St Martins College
05/01377/ADV Kingsway Retail Park, Parliament Street, Lancaster Application Refused Erection of an illuminated shop sign at unit 4 for Bathstore.com Ltd
05/01381/CU Telephone House, Fenton Street, Lancaster Application Permitted Change of use of office (right, front suite - upper ground floor) to dental practice (B1 to D1) for Dr S C Berr
05/01385/FUL 11A Regent Park Avenue, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Withdrawn Erection of wooden fence with concrete posts and bases to the front and side boundary for Mr and Mrs P Bond
05/01388/FUL 17 Kirkstone Drive, Morecambe, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of a ground floor extension to the rear for Mr and Mrs K Davis
05/01390/FUL 29 Kellet Road, Carnforth, Lancashire Permitted Development Removal of shed to rear and erection of new stable for occasional overnight use for Mr and Mrs Sharples
05/01391/FUL St Josephs Parish Hall, Aldrens Lane, Lancaster Application Permitted Renewal of temporary permission 03/01228/FUL for the erection of a 2.4m high temporary fence on 2 sides of parish hall for Lancaster R C Diocese Trustees
05/01402/FUL Belle Vue Farm, Eskrigge Lane, Gressingham Application Permitted Alterations to front porch and re-roofing of rear outrigger for Mr and Mrs R Clough
05/01419/LB Kingsway Retail Park, Parliament Street, Lancaster Application Refused Listed Building Application for the erection of an illuminated shop sign at Unit 4 for Bathstore.com Ltd
05/01420/FUL 1 Brook Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Demolition of existing garden room and erection of a single storey garage for Dr M G Salameh
05/01421/FUL 17 The Hawthorns, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Erection of an extension to kitchen and utility room for Mr and Mrs B Richards
Page 102
This page is intentionally left blank