Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest on this occasion.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 1 December 2015 as a true and correct record.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2015 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Committee considered a report outlining details of planning and enforcement appeals lodged and determined since the last meeting.

Resolved:  To note the planning and enforcement appeals lodged and determined.

Background papers:  (1) Letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 10 December 2015. (2) Letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 5 October 2015.

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 summarising planning enforcement activity within Blackpool during November 2015.

Resolved:  To note the outcomes of the cases set out in the report and to support the actions of the Service Manager, Public Protection 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 15/0227 for the erection of roof lift to existing rear extension to provide five additional bedrooms and lounge and provision of three additional car parking spaces to rear following removal of existing storage building.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management presented the Committee with a brief overview of the application and the site layout plans for the proposed development.  He circulated to Members an aerial photograph of the proposed development site and surrounding area.

Mr Johnston reported on the main issues of the proposed development which included a detrimental impact on the amenity of the nearby residents from a further intensification of development at the site and an increase in the height of the existing building including two windows resulting in neighbouring properties being overlooked. A further issue was the increase in the number of residents within the care home with no indication of an increase in the amenity space for the existing residents. 

Mr Cove, public objector, spoke in objection to the application.

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 upon the application.

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 15/0228 for the use of premises as four self contained permanent flats with associated landscaping/car parking and works following demolition of existing rear extensions and alteration to existing garage.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management, presented the Committee with a brief overview of the application and the site layout plans for the proposed development.  An aerial photograph of the proposed development site and surrounding area had been circulated to Members at the meeting.

Mr Johnston advised the Committee that there was no issue with the principle of converting the existing properties to flats and that the proposed flats would meet the requirement of the New Homes for Old Places Supplementary Planning Document. The application included adequate off street parking provision, an amenity area and bin and cycle storage.  Mr Johnston acknowledged that access to the car parking area would be adjacent to a neighbouring property at 10 Carlin Gate, but did not consider that the use of the car park would be sufficiently intensive to adversely affect the amenity of the residents of the property, particularly as the area would be partially shielded by a garage.

Mr Cove, public objector, spoke in objection to the application.

In response to concerns raised by the public objector regarding the impact on the privacy of residents of neighbouring properties, Mr Johnston reported that in his opinion he did not consider that the proposed development would adversely impact on the privacy of nearby residents in view of the location of windows on the side and rear elevations of the property and the location of the amenity area and given that the proposal included the removal of buildings to the rear of the development.

During a lengthy discussion on the application, the Committee raised concerns regarding the potential for further development should the application be granted, although Members accepted that they could only consider the merits of the application before them.  Further concerns raised by the Committee  included the potential future use of the property within the Use Class C3 should permission be granted, in particular its potential use for the purposes of providing care accommodation as an extension to the facilities of the nearby care homes owned by the applicant.  Members also expressed concerns that if the application was approved, the ancillary car parking and amenity area might not be reserved for use by the occupants of the flats.  The Committee was also concerned at the potential for the car parking and rear area to be developed without the existing buildings being converted into flats.

In response to a request from the Committee, Mr Johnston agreed to consider whether any conditions to address the concerns raised by Members could be attached to the planning permission.

Resolved:  That consideration of the application be deferred to the next meeting to allow the Head of Development Management the opportunity to consider and formulate any conditions which might address the concerns raised by the Committee.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations upon  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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 15/0229 for the use of land as communal garden in association with existing rest homes at 4 St Stephens Avenue and 4 Carlin Gate following demolition of existing rear extensions at 6-8 Carlin Gate.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management, presented the Committee with a brief overview of the application and the site layout plans for the proposed development.  An aerial photograph of the proposed development site and surrounding area had been circulated to Members at the meeting.

Mr Johnston reported that one of the main considerations of the proposed development was whether it transgressed Policy BH24 of the Blackpool Local Plan.  However, in his opinion, whilst he acknowledged that theoretically the proposed development would appear to extend beyond the 10% of properties in a block permitted for C2 use, in practical terms it would not impact upon the character of the residential area as residential frontages would be retained to St Stephen’s Avenue and Carlin Gate and as such would not conflict with the intent of Policy BH24.  A further issue was whether the usage of the garden area, if permission was granted, would adversely impact upon the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.  Mr Johnston confirmed his view that on balance it would not significantly affect the amenities of the local residents and therefore recommended that planning permission ought to be granted.

Mr Cove and Mrs Singleton, public objectors, spoke in objection to the application. 

The Committee considered the merits of the application and noted the representations made relating to the perceived impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties in terms of noise disturbance and reduced privacy.

In response to concerns raised by a Member of the Committee, Mr Johnston confirmed that a condition requiring the retention of the existing tree located within the development site would be imposed on the planning permission if approved. 

Further concerns were raised by the Committee which included the intended purpose for the use of the land and the potential for future development on the land should the application be approved, however it  acknowledged that it could only consider the merits of the application before it. 

In response to a request from the Committee, Mr Johnston agreed to consider whether any conditions to address the concerns raised by Members could be attached to the planning permission.

Resolved:  That consideration of the application be deferred to the next meeting to allow the Head of Development Management the opportunity to consider and formulate any conditions which might address the concerns raised by the Committee.

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