Agenda and minutes

Members are asked to declare any interests in the items under consideration and in doing so state:

(1) the type of interest concerned either

(a)   personal interest

(b)   prejudicial interest

(c)    disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI)

and

(2) the nature of the interest concerned

If any member requires advice on declarations of interests, they are advised to contact the Head of Democratic Governance in advance of the meeting.

Councillors L Williams and Jackson declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 6, Planning Application 18/0159 – Land at Adelaide Street, Alfred Street and Leopold Grove, Blackpool. The nature of the interest being that they were Board Members of Blackpool Entertainment Company Limited.

Councillor Jackson also declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 5, 296-298 Highfield Road, Blackpool.  The nature of the interest being that the applicant, Mr Nuttall, was a close family friend.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 22 May 2018 as a true and correct record.

The Committee considered the minutes of the last meeting held on 22 May 2018.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2018 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Committee noted that an appeal had been lodged against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a terrace of three two-storey dwellinghouses with detached garages at 12-14 Olive Grove, Blackpool, with access from Olive Grove.

It also noted the decision of the Planning Inspector to allow an appeal made by JWT Leisure against the refusal of planning permission for the use of the premises at 42 Abingdon Street, Blackpool, as an amusement centre (adult gaming centre).  However, a separate application for full award of costs in relation to the above appeal had been refused by the Planning Inspector.

It further noted that an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a single storey side extension at Ma Kelly’s, 44-46 Queens Promenade, Blackpool had been dismissed by the Planning Inspector.

Resolved:  To note the planning appeals lodged and determined.

Background papers:  None

To update the Planning Committee of the Council’s performance in relation to

Government targets.

The Committee considered the report detailing the Council’s performance in relation to Government targets.

Resolved:  To note the report.

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 planning application 18/0122 for the installation of a new shop front at 296-298 Highfield Road.

Ms Greenway, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the application and presented the site location, proposed plans and visual images of the shop front.

Mr Nuttall, applicant, spoke in favour of the application and advised the Committee of the reasons that the sign had been installed and his view of the benefits of the new shop front on the streetscene.

Councillor Hunter, Ward Councillor, also spoke in favour of the application and read to the Committee correspondence he had received from Gordon Marsden MP in support of the application which supported his own view.  He expanded on the benefits of the application, which included his view of the valuable community service provided by the applicant’s business and reported on positive comments made by his constituents.  He asked the Committee to consider deferral of the application to allow the opportunity for a solution to be sought to satisfy all parties.

During consideration of the application the Committee noted that the applicant had not applied for a change of use for both the ground and upper floors of 296 Highfield Road which was considered necessary to protect the amenity of residents in neighbouring properties.  Members discussed the benefits of determining the applications for both the change of use and installation of the new shop front simultaneously. 

Positive comments were made by Members on the improvements to the streetscene from the new shop front, whilst acknowledging that the signage had been installed without the required planning consent. The Committee also had regard to the planning officer’s comments in relation to the design of the shop front which in her view was not in keeping with the other shops within the shopping parade.  Members of the Committee considered that there would be benefit in allowing the opportunity for further discussions on the application to take place between the applicant and the planning officer.

The Committee concluded that the application should be deferred to a future meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to amend the application to include the change of use, so that the Committee could consider both aspects of the proposal.

Resolved:  That the application be deferred to a future meeting.

NOTE:  Councillor Jackson, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest left the room during consideration of the above item and took no part in the discussion or voting in respect of the application.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on 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 planning application 18/0159 for the erection of a part three/ part four/ part five storey hotel, plus lower ground floor spa facility and car park for a maximum of 62 vehicles accessed from Adelaide Street, to provide a maximum of 203 bedrooms.

Mr Shaw, Principal Planning Officer, gave an overview of the application and presented site layout, location and elevational plans and an aerial view of the site.  He reminded Members of previous planning permissions that had been granted at the site.  He advised the Committee that the application sought approval for the development of a part three/part four/part five storey hotel with a maximum of 203 bedrooms with associated 62 basement car park.  He reported on amendments to the application following discussions with the applicant to address concerns, which included the impact on nearby properties. 

Mr White, public objector, spoke against the application and advised that he was speaking on behalf of StayBlackpool.  He raised concerns regarding his view of the impact on independent hoteliers, the local community and the town due to the increase in scale of the development and the proposed star rating of the hotel.

Mr Shaw reminded the Committee that star ratings of hotels and competition were not planning considerations.  He presented his view on the benefits of the development in terms of the local economy and improvements to the hotel offer within the town.

In response to concerns raised by the Committee in relation to parking provision, Mr Shaw reported on the net loss of 16 parking spaces.  He confirmed that whilst 203 bedrooms was the maximum number for the hotel, the likelihood was that the actual number would be lower.  The Committee noted that the application was for outline planning permission only and that matters of building design, including footprint and layout and means of accessing and servicing would be subject to a subsequent application if outline planning permission was granted.

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.

NOTE:  Councillors L Williams and Jackson, having declared a prejudicial interest, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting in respect of the application.

ADDITIONAL NOTE:  Councillor Humphreys took the chair during consideration of this item.

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 planning application 18/0199 for the retention of a temporary portable cabin for a period until 31 December 2018.

Ms Greenway, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the application and presented floor plans, elevations and a visual image of the property.  She explained that the portable cabin was required to accommodate a local radio station during construction of a rear extension to the property. 

Mr Knight, public objector, spoke against the application raising concerns regarding the original siting of the cabin without the required planning permission.  He also reported his view of the impact of housing the local radio station within the portable cabin in terms of unacceptable noise levels, anti-social behaviour and parking difficulties for his family.

Mr Shaw, applicant, spoke in support of the application and presented his view of the lack of noise due to the soundproofing of the radio station.  He reported his opinion on the benefits of the radio station for the local community and the potential impact on the volunteers should the hours of operation be reduced.

During consideration of the application the Committee noted the condition that would be attached to the permission should it be granted to prevent usage of the cabin between 22.00 hours on any day until 08.00 hours on the following day.  In response to questions from the Committee Ms Greenway confirmed that Environmental Protection had powers to address excessive noise issues as appropriate.  She also confirmed that the date of 19 December 2018 shown on proposed condition 1 was an error and that this would be amended to 31 December 2018, should permission be granted.  The Committee noted the temporary nature of the portable cabin and the need for it to be in place whilst the rear extension was being constructed.

Resolved:  That the application be approved, subject to the conditions, including amended condition 1 to show the removal date of the portable cabin as 31 December 2018, 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 will be requested to consider an application for planning permission,

details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee considered planning application 18/0202 requesting permission for the demolition of the existing public house, relocation of the vehicular access and erection of a bingo hall (Use Class D2) and a drive-thru cafe/restaurant (Use Class A3) with associated reconfiguration of the existing car park and provision of new landscaping.

Miss Parker, Senior Planning Officer, gave an overview of the application and presented the site location, layout and elevational plans for the development. She referred Members to the Update Note which amended the officer’s recommendation to request a deferral of the application to its next Committee meeting to enable the applicant the opportunity to satisfy the officer’s concerns regarding the appearance of the building and demonstrate compliance with the sequential test. Further plans were circulated to Committee relating to the lower ground floor of the former BHS unit in the town centre and the proposed elevations for the bingo hall building as well as a computer generated image of the proposed development. Miss Parker reported on the grounds for the original recommendation for refusal which were the failure to satisfy the sequential test and the design of the development.  As regards the design, Miss Parker advised that in her view the revised plans would address the design concerns and reported on the likelihood that the applicant would now be in a position to provide information to satisfy the sequential test.  A deferral to the next meeting would allow the opportunity for the applicant to amend the application to the revised design and provide information to satisfy the sequential test.

Mr Smith, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.  He reported on the redesign of the development which in his view addressed the concerns raised in this regard and the unsuitability of the identified sequentially preferable sites. He reported on the benefits of the development which included a significant investment in the area and employment opportunities.

In response to a question from the Committee, Miss Parker reported on more recent surveys that had been submitted regarding highway activity and car park usage that now satisfied the Head of Highways and Traffic Management.

The Committee noted that the application had been recommended for refusal on the grounds that the development had failed to satisfy the sequential test and the design of the development. However, it also noted that the revised elevations as shown on the amended plans had resolved the planning officer’s original concerns regarding the design and that it was considered likely that the applicant would be able to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test requirement.  Concerns were raised regarding the impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood from the proposed design of the bingo hall in terms of the glare from the proposed external illumination of the building.

The Committee agreed that the application be deferred to its next meeting on 17 July 2018 to allow the applicant the opportunity to submit evidence to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test and give further consideration to the design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.