Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest on this occasion.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 22 February 2017 as a true and correct record.

The Committee considered the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 22 February 2017.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2017 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Committee will be asked to note the outcomes of the cases and support the actions of the Service Manager – Public Protection.

The Committee considered a report detailing the planning enforcement activity undertaken within Blackpool during February 2017.

The report stated that 66 new cases had been registered for investigation, seven cases had been resolved by negotiation without recourse to formal action and 57 cases were closed as there was either no breach of planning control found, no action was appropriate or it was not considered expedient to take action.  No enforcement notices had been authorised or served during the same period.

The report also provided comparative information for the same period last year.

Resolved:  To note the outcome of the cases set out in the report and to support the actions of the Service Manager, Public Protection Department, in authorising the notices.

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee considered planning application 16/0443 that sought outline planning permission for the erection of seven detached bungalows with associated access road and car parking on land to the rear of 1-7 Broad Oak Lane.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management, gave a brief overview of the planning application and site location and layout plans.  He reported on the proposed development’s location within a designated countryside area.  Mr Johnston reminded Members that the Planning Inspectorate had dismissed an appeal in June 2015 against the Council’s refusal of a previous application for residential development on the site.  Whilst the current proposal sought to address some of the reasons for dismissal of the appeal, in Mr Johnston’s view as it still sought permission for seven bungalows on the site, it would not represent sustainable development and would be contrary to Policy NE2 of the Local Plan and CS1 of the Core Strategy.

Councillor Angel, Staining Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application raising concerns regarding the significant harm to the immediate area, drainage issues and the loss of light to neighbouring properties.

Councillor Singleton, Fylde Borough Council, also spoke in objection to the application and raised concerns relating to increased flooding and an exacerbation of the existing drainage issues.

Mrs Green, public objector, reported on the detrimental impact of the proposed development in terms of an exacerbation of the current flooding and sewerage issues, loss of light, the proximity of Great Crested Newts and the impact on the appearance of Broad Oak Lane. 

Mr Beardmore, Applicant, spoke in support of the application and reported on the work that had been undertaken following refusal of the previous application and the dismissed appeal. He stated his view that the land was not viable for agricultural purposes and the proposed development would be a positive contribution to the area by providing homes on redundant land.

Responding to concerns relating to flooding, the Committee noted that United Utilities had not raised any objections to the proposed development, subject to appropriate conditions being attached to any permission.

In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Johnston showed Members the area for the proposed development and its relationship with the countryside, highlighting the conflicts with policy which sought to direct residential development to the resort core, the town centre and south Blackpool.

Resolved: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Appendix to the minutes.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee considered planning application 16/0686 that sought planning permission for the use of the premises at 262 Queens Promenade as a 21 bedroomed care home.

Mr Johnston presented the Committee with a brief overview of the application and site location and layout plans.  He advised Members that the property was a former hotel that had been vacant since 2013.  In relation to the key considerations for the proposal, Mr Johnston reported his view that the location of the property would not have a significant impact on the character of the main holiday accommodation promenade frontage and he was satisfied that the need for care homes and the suitability of the property had been demonstrated.  The Head of Highways and Traffic Management had no objection in principle to the proposed development.

Mr Johnston advised the Committee on an amendment to proposed condition 6 in that it should include specific reference to a nursing care home.  He also advised Members that the applicant had been asked to consider relocating the main entrance to address the concerns of the owner of the adjacent hotel.  The applicant had stated that this would not be practicable but had confirmed that access for ambulances would be from Arundel Avenue.

Resolved:  That the application be approved, subject to the conditions, and for the reasons set out in the Appendix to the minutes.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee considered planning application 16/0810 that sought planning permission for the use of premises at 256-258 Church Street as a non-residential drug and alcohol advice and support centre within Use Class D1.

Mr Shaw, Principal Planning Officer, presented the Committee with a brief overview of the application and site location and layout plans.  He referred the Committee to the representations in the Update Note which had been received from residents outside of the immediate vicinity and the consultation responses indicating that the proposal had the support of the Council’s Director of Public Health and Director of Adult Services. Mr Shaw suggested an amendment to proposed condition 3 to extend the hours of opening to include 09.00 hours to 17.00 hours on Sundays to provide a degree of flexibility for service provision.  Mr Shaw reported on the purpose of the premises as an office base providing professional advice and support for people in abstinence from drug or alcohol related issues and confirmed that no drugs or medication would be on the premises.

It was noted that a retrospective application had been submitted for the ongoing renovation works and this would be dealt with separately. 

The Committee raised questions relating to parking and Mr Shaw confirmed that forecourt parking would be limited to Buchanan Street and would be provided for by a condition and that the parking provision was considered sufficient. 

Resolved:  That the application be approved, subject to the conditions including the amended condition extending the hours of opening to 09.00 hours to 17.00 hours on Sundays, and for the reasons set out in the Appendix to the minutes.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee considered planning application 16/0845 that sought outline planning permission for the erection of a five-storey building comprising two bar/restaurants at ground floor level (Class A3 and A4 uses) and 15 two bedroomed self-contained flats on the upper floors, with associated vehicular accesses from Bolton Street to car parking facilities for 16 vehicles, with refuse storage and cycle parking to the rear at 429-437 Promenade.

Mr Shaw presented the Committee with a brief overview of the application and the site location and layout plans including the scale of the proposed development.  He explained that the application sought to agree the matters of access, layout, scale and landscaping with details of appearance subject to a subsequent reserved matters application.  A similar application had received approval in 2013 and Mr Shaw reported on the differences between that application and the current proposal in terms of the removal of forecourt parking, the provision of an outside seating area for residents and an increase of 2.5 metres in the height of the proposed building.  The existing property, prior to demolition, had comprised a café / takeaway on the ground floor with flats above.  Mr Shaw reported on policy considerations relating to the introduction of a new restaurant and permanent flats on the Promenade.  He advised Members that the principle of this type of development had been accepted through the approval of the previous application in 2013 at which time a viability assessment had been undertaken that had demonstrated that holiday flats were not a viable option.

Mr Shaw referred Members to issues raised by the Head of Highways and Traffic Management and confirmed that a Construction Management Plan had been included in the proposed conditions.  Mr Shaw suggested amendments to the proposed conditions contained in the report relating to the creation of two separate conditions to cover surface water drainage and foul water drainage to be agreed prior to occupation and the noise insulation scheme between the café and upper floor flats to be submitted and agreed prior to occupation.  He also proposed additional conditions relating servicing of the development and improvements to the surface of the access road from Bolton Street.

Mr Boniface, the Applicant’s Agent, spoke in support of the application.  He reported his view on the benefits of the proposal which included the offer a commercial and residential development on the Promenade and the removal of the negative impact on the streetscene since the demolition of the former building. 

In response to questions regarding the viability assessment for the previous application, it was considered that this position remained unchanged.  It was accepted that the access road from Bolton Street was narrow and therefore arrangements would need to be made for refuse collection to be made from Bolton Street.

Resolved:  That the application be approved, subject to the conditions, and for the reasons set out in the Appendix to the minutes.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee considered an approval of a reserved matters application for the erection of a residential development comprising 422 dwellings (two and three storey apartments and houses), with associated parking, village green/play area, water features and shop and formation of vehicular access to Progress Way (reserved matters application) on the land at Moss House Road. 

Mr Johnston presented the Committee with an overview of the application and site location and layout plans.  He reminded Members that an approval of reserved matters had previously been given for 579 dwellings at the site with conditions attached relating to the maximum number of dwellings, the requirement for a mix of dwellings, a limit on the number of dwellings per hectare and the location of the three storey dwellings.  The permission had also been subject to a Section 106 agreement in respect of payments towards affordable housing, education, open space and highways. 

Members were advised of the key changes in the layout and mix of properties since approval of the previous approval of reserved matters application.  Mr Johnston did not consider that the reduction in the number of dwellings would impact on the Council’s housing requirement due to other residential developments in the south of the town and in his view the proposed development was in accordance with policy.  He reported on the letter from United Utilities that had been circulated to Members stating that it had no objection in principle to the proposed development subject to suitable conditions relating to surface water and foul water drainage. 

Mr Johnston referred Members to the representation received from Mr Marsden MP detailed in the Update Note.  In relation to Mr Marsden’s comments regarding the legal agreement and financial contribution to affordable housing, Mr Johnston advised on changes since the original amount of £9.184 million had been agreed, which included the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Department for Communities and Local Government guidance on viability and the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 which allowed developers to challenge the amounts required.  In addition, an appeal decision in 2014 had reduced the amount required for the affordable housing contribution to £5.07million. 

In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Johnston confirmed that the developer had agreed to the revised financial contribution for affordable housing (£5.07million) and that it would be paid in nine instalments.  An amendment to the Section 106 Agreement would be required.

Responding to concerns raised by the Committee relating to highways, Mr Patel confirmed that the financial contribution to Highways was £1.4million, of which £500,000 had already been received.  The funds would be used in the construction of a junction and footpath.  He also confirmed that two bus stops would be installed on Progress Way.

The Committee was reminded that the consultation period had not yet expired and therefore the recommendation was to delegate approval to the Head of Development Management following the expiry of the consultation period.

Resolved:  To delegate authority to grant permission to the Head of Development Management, following consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.