Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest on this occasion.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 4^th August 2015 as a true and correct record.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 4^th August 2015 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To note the planning/enforcement appeals lodged and determined.

Background papers:  letter from the planning inspectorate dated 17 August 2015

The Committee considered the planning enforcement update report. 

In response to a request for an update on the Community Protection Notice served in connection with enforcement case 15/8316, land adjacent to 39 School Road, Mr Johnston confirmed that the majority of the actions requiring compliance by 20^th July 2015 had been achieved with the exception of a small section of fencing that still needed to be erected along the boundary with number 39 School Road.  Reporting on the requirements for compliance by 10^th August 2015, Mr Johnston reported that the desktop study, the details of the foul and surface water drainage arrangements and details of the finished levels for the development had been submitted.

Responding to concerns raised by a Member of the Committee, Mr Johnston agreed to investigate the use of the recently acquired cabin to ascertain if it was being used as living accommodation.

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

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

The Committee considered application 14/0608 for the erection of a single storey retail food store (Use Class A1) with main pedestrian access from the Blackpool Retail Park, creation of vehicular access through from the Blackpool Retail Park to the Squires Gate Lane Industrial Estate, creation of 44 car parking spaces and associated servicing area and landscaping, following demolition of existing buildings.

Members were reminded that at its last meeting the Committee had resolved to defer consideration of the application to this meeting to enable further information to be received relating to the sequential test, particularly in relation to the Booths Store on Highfield Road and the cumulative impact on the Local and District Centres in the Southern part of Blackpool.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management provided the Committee with an overview of the application and the site location plan. He reported that the proposed development, if approved, would involve the loss of 0.7 hectares of employment land and would represent a departure from Policies DE1 and DE2 the Council’s Local Plan and policies CS3 and CS24 of the Council’s Core Strategy.  It was also located within the proposed Enterprise Zone which was due to come into effect in January 2016. Mr Johnston advised Members that the proposed development would open up a new vehicular link to the retail park which was currently closed.  There would be 44 parking spaces and parking availability would be shared with other retail stores which would provide a total of 524 spaces.  Mr Johnston advised Members that the applicant’s agent had confirmed that the new store if approved would provide employment for up to 40 people.

Mr Johnston referred to additional information that had been provided by Savills, Aldi Stores Ltd, Steven Abbott Associates and Hollis Vincent in relation to the sequential test and the cumulative impact on the Local and District Centres in the Southern part of Blackpool.  He reported that he was satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that there would not be a significant impact on the Local and District Centres in the Southern part of the town.  However, the main issue remained that, in Mr Johnston’s opinion, there was a sequentially preferable site available based on location, transport links to the town centre and a greater residential catchment area.  Mr Johnston reminded Members that satisfying the sequential test was a key element of the National Planning Policy Framework and that there was a requirement for flexibility on both parties on issues such as format and scale of any proposed development.  Mr Johnston considered that the application should be refused on the grounds that it had failed the sequential test.

Mr Hollis, representing Baxter Group Ltd spoke in objection to the application. 

Mr Sobic, the applicant’s agent and Mr Isherwood, on behalf of Aldi spoke in support of the application.

The Committee carefully considered the representations made by all parties both in writing and at the meeting. 

During consideration of the application, Members acknowledged the loss of employment land  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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

Prior to consideration of application 15/0224 for the erection of residential development in the rear garden with associated access from Preston New Road, Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management advised Members that the report had been withdrawn to enable clarification on the application’s planning history.

Responding to a question from the Committee, Mr Johnston confirmed that there would be a further opportunity for objections to the application to be submitted and that the timescale for objections to be received was approximately two weeks.

Resolved:   To note that the report had been withdrawn and that the application was likely to be re-submitted to the Committee at its next meeting on 6^th October 2015.

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

Prior to consideration of application 15/0362 for the erection of a three storey building comprising of 15 two bedroom self-contained permanent flats with vehicle access from Gynn Avenue and associated car parking facilities for six vehicles, refuse store and cycle store to rear, Mr Johnston advised that a late objection to the application had been received from the Head of Transportation.  He informed Members that due to the late submission, the applicant had not had sight of the objection and in view of this requested that the Committee defer consideration of the application to allow the applicant the opportunity to consider and respond to the objection.

In response to concerns raised regarding the late receipt of the objection, Mr Johnston agreed to discuss with officers from the Transportation section the requirement for comments to be made available at the time that the report is being prepared to allow for those comments to be considered within the report.

Resolved:  To defer consideration of the application to the next meeting on 6^th October 2015 to allow the opportunity for the applicant to consider the Head of Transportation’s objection.