Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest on this occasion.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 14 March 2017 as a true and correct record.

The Committee considered the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 14 March 2017.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2017 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Committee noted that an appeal that had been lodged by DY Property Services Ltd in respect of 253 Promenade against the issue of an Enforcement Notice regarding the change of use from the land affected from a hotel to two self-contained permanent flats without planning permission.

It also noted that two further appeals had been lodged against the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission in respect of the following:

1.      the erection of an extension at second floor level on top of the roof at 1 St Luke’s Road, Blackpool.

2.      part refusal to grant advertisement consent for the display of one double sided internally illuminated totem sign, one non-illuminated free standing sign, three non-illuminated fascia signs, one internally illuminated fascia sign and one internally illuminated projecting sign at J Sainsbury PLC, 80 Red Bank Road.

The Committee further noted that there had been no planning and enforcement appeals determined since its last meeting.

Resolved:  To note the planning appeals lodged and determined.

Background papers:  Letters from the Planning Inspectorate dated 2 March 2017, 7 March 2017 and 27 March 2017.

To update members of Planning Committee of the Council’s performance in relation to Government targets.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management referred advised Members that it was considered best practice to provide regular reports to the Committee on the Council’s performance against Government targets relating to the determination of planning applications and appeals.

He referred Members to the performance statistics contained within the report for the first two months of 2017.  The Committee was advised of the performance for March 2017 during which no major applications had been determined and the performance for minor development application decisions was 100% against a target of 70%.

Resolved: To note the report on planning applications and appeals performance.

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 16/0797 that sought planning permission for the erection of one pair of two storey semi-detached dwellinghouses with integral car ports and associated landscaping and boundary treatment, following demolition of the existing warehouse building at the land to the rear of 435-437 Waterloo Road.

Mr Johnston presented the Committee with a brief overview of the application and the site location, elevation and layout plans.  He advised Members of a previous planning permission for residential development at the site that had been granted in 1989.  He referred Members to the public representation from a nearby resident contained within the report and reported his view of the improvements in relation to the outlook and lighting on the rear garden of the objector’s property from the proposed removal of the two storey element of the current building.  Whilst he accepted that the access route via an unmade track was not ideal, in his view it was considered acceptable given the relatively short distance from the site to Ryburn Avenue.  Mr Johnston concluded by reminding the Committee of the provisions within current legislation that could permit the conversion to residential use under permitted development rights without the need for relevant conditions to be imposed.

Mr Boniface, the applicant’s Agent, spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application and reported on the disrepair of the current building and the lack of a viable option to convert it to residential use.  He also reported his view of the positive impact on the area from the proposed development and confirmed the applicant’s intention to resurface the existing access road.

The Committee questioned the appropriateness of siting the proposed dwelling houses behind the alleygates and Mr Johnston reported on other areas that had properties located to the rear of alleygates.  The Committee raised concerns regarding the potential for the subsequent removal of the alleygates and the impact that this could have on residents of neighbouring properties.  It requested assurances that the alleygates would remain in place should planning permission be granted.  Mr Boniface confirmed the applicant’s intention to retain the existing alleygates.

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 17/0060 relating to a resubmission of planning application 15/0820 for the re-development of Anchorsholme Park to include new pumping station and associated buildings, storage tank control building, six vent stacks, erection of cafe and bowling club/ maintenance building, re-contouring and landscaping of park, new amphitheatre feature, new footpaths, provision of MUGA (multi-use games area), trim trail, and children’s playground, new access from Princes Way, new walls and fencing.

Mr Shaw, Principal Planning Officer, presented the Committee with an overview of the application and the changes compared with application 15/0820 and the site layout, elevation and location plans. 

Mr Shaw advised Members that confirmation had been received from Lancashire Archaeological Advisory Service that there was no longer a requirement for the proposed condition relating to a programme of Archaeological work to be submitted.  He referred Members to the appendices to the report which listed the applicant’s responses to the concerns raised by the planning officer, Ward Councillors and local residents.

The Committee was advised that this application was a resubmission of a previous application for which planning permission had been granted in April 2016. Mr Shaw reported on the main changes between the previous and current applications and showed Members visual images of the main differences between the two applications.  The main proposed change related to the pumping station being positioned largely above ground level in a larger building but within a smaller compound area.  Other proposed changes included alterations to the design and appearance of the storage tank and café buildings, an increase of half a metre in the overall height of the Park and alterations to the landscaping and surfacing materials.   Mr Shaw reported on the applicant’s consent to the landscaping, boundary treatments, retaining walls and surfacing materials being dealt with by the imposition of conditions, should the application be approved.

Mr Patel, Group Engineer, Traffic Management, confirmed that the comments made  by the Head of Highways and Traffic Management in the Update Note would be resolved through discussions with the applicant.  Following a question by a Member of the Committee, Mr Shaw confirmed that a new Construction Management Plan would be required as a condition of any new planning permission.

Ms Firth, public objector, spoke in objection to the application on behalf of a number of local residents.  She referred to presentation slides which had been circulated to the Committee and the applicant during the meeting and raised concerns which included the potential impact on nearby residents due to the proposed siting of the pumping station above ground.  Further concerns related to the increase in the height of the Park and the negative impact on the appearance of the Park due to the change to gabion walls and steel fencing.  She also questioned the reasons behind the changes from the original application which in her view had been designed to reduce the cost of the development.

Mr Watson, Applicant, spoke in support of the application and reported on his view of the benefits  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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 17/0104 for the erection of a four storey extension to Corporation Street elevation of the Municipal Building to form an external lift shaft.

Mr Johnston presented the Committee with a brief overview of the application and the site location, elevation and layout plans.  He reported that the proposal was located within the Town Centre Conservation Area and that the extension would not affect the friezes on the façade but would impact on the external appearance of the Locally Listed building.  He reported on the lack of acceptable alternative locations for the lift shaft that had resulted in the current proposal.  Mr Johnston reminded the Committee of its obligation to consider the impact of the proposed development on the Locally Listed building and the Conservation Area.  He referred Members to paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework and CS8 of the Core Strategy and reported his view that on balance the proposal was weighted in favour of recommending approval.

Mr Jones, on behalf of the Applicant, spoke in favour of the application, stating that the proposal had been the subject of negotiations to enable the Job Centre to relocate into Municipal Buildings.  He reported on the financial benefits of the relocation for the Council and the benefits to customers from more collaborative working between the Job Centre and the Council.  He confirmed that the Job Centre would cover the financial costs of the proposal.  He reported on the consideration of alternative locations for the lift shaft which had not been deemed feasible and the efforts made to ensure that the structure was in keeping with the streetscene.

During consideration of the application, the Committee questioned the location of the lift shaft and on invitation from the Chairman, Mr Jones expanded on the reasons why it had been deemed the only suitable location in terms of secure and accessible access to the Job Centre. Mr Nixon, Senior Project Manager, Blackpool Council reported on the difficulties in locating the lift shaft internally within the building. Following concerns raised by the Committee, it was noted that there would be an appropriate lease agreement in place.

Mr Patel referred the Committee to the Head of Highways and Traffic Management objection to the proposal as detailed in the report.  He confirmed that, as the lift shaft would be located on the public highway, a decision would need to be taken by the Department of Transport on the acceptability of the proposal prior to any work commencing. He also referred to section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 stating that all highway rights would have to be removed as the development would be on what was currently a public highway.

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.