Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest on this occasion.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 4 July 2017 as a true and correct record.

The Committee considered the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 4 July 2017.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2017 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Committee noted the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to dismiss an appeal against the service of an Enforcement Notice relating to the unauthorised erection of decking, a fence and a shed at first floor level on the flat roof of the outrigger at 212 Dickson Road, Blackpool.  Another appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of the property at 21 Cranleigh Avenue, Blackpool, against the service of an Enforcement Notice relating to the unauthorised erection of a rear dormer hung in brown uPVC and the erection of a side dormer hung in brown uPVC and with an opening window was allowed.

Resolved:  To note the planning appeals lodged and determined.

Background papers:  None

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 June 2017.

The report stated that 96 new cases had been registered for investigation, five cases had been resolved by negotiation without recourse to formal action and 42 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.  One Community Protection Notice had been issued 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.

Background papers:  None

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

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management reported on the Council’s performance in relation to the determination of planning applications and planning appeals for the month of June and the quarter period from April to June 2017. He advised Members that performance was above the target thresholds set by Government.

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 17/0188 relating to external alterations including installation of bi-fold doors to front elevation and new door and extraction flue to rear elevation, and use of premises as altered as a restaurant (Use Class A3) at 65 Harrowside, Blackpool.

Mr Shaw, Principal Planning Officer, presented the Committee with an overview of the application and the proposed site layout, location plans and aerial views of the site.  The property was situated within a designated Local Centre and the application sought to convert a vacant ground floor shop into a restaurant to include a forecourt to the front of the premises for occasional use. 

Mr Shaw reported on discussions held with representatives from the Council’s Environmental Protection department and the Applicant’s Agent during which an agreement had been reached to impose a condition to restrict the hours of use from 5pm to 10pm each day and to request that a sound proof scheme and flue extraction details be submitted and agreed by Environmental Protection.  A proposed condition to prevent any further alteration to the forecourt without prior planning approval would be also attached to the permission, if granted.

The Committee noted that the use of the premises restaurant in a local centre was in accordance with Council Policy and Mr Shaw drew Members’ attention to the proposed conditions to control its use in view of the residential accommodation situated above the premises.

Mr Shaw reported on two further representations received from nearby residents who had previously objected to the application.  One of the representations indicated that the resident was now satisfied with the amended closing time of 10pm.  The second representation reiterated previous concerns relating to potential noise and the proximity of the forecourt to their property.

Mr Ambrosini, Applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He provided reassurances to the Committee that the premises would be soundproofed and music restricted to inside the premises. He added that the intention was for the restaurant to cater mainly for couples and families and the expectation that the majority of customers would walk to the restaurant or arrive by taxi.

In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Ambrosini confirmed that the number of covers in the restaurant would be 20 and that it would be feasible for the restaurant to close at 10pm.

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 17/0360 relating to the Ruskin Hotel, 55-61 Albert Road, Blackpool, for the erection of a bridge at first floor level connecting the rear elevation of the hotel with existing rear garage/accommodation block, external alterations, erection of glazed balustrade and parapet wall to roof of garage/accommodation block, and use of garage/accommodation block as altered as a leisure complex with roof terrace ancillary to main hotel.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management, presented the Committee with an overview of the application and the proposed site layout, location plans and aerial views of the site.  Visual images of the proposed development, which included the proposed bridge connecting the first floor of the building to the existing hotel, were also presented to the Committee. 

The property had recently been acquired by the Applicant and was located within the defined South Town Centre Main Holiday Accommodation Area. Mr Johnston reported on further planning history dating back to 1987 which had given permission for the parking of four vehicles within the building. The intention was to replace the existing garage doors at ground floor level with opaque glazing for the swimming pool and rest area.  The first floor would be used for changing rooms and spa facilities.  The roof would be used to provide a sun terrace with a high glazed parapet wall to prevent overlooking of adjacent properties.  Mr Johnston acknowledged the loss of parking spaces but in his view this was outweighed on balance by the enhanced facilities that would be on offer from the proposal.

Mr Johnston drew Members’ attention to the proposed conditions restricting the playing of live music, hours of use of the roof terrace and the requirement for the approval of a lighting scheme. 

Mr Morgan spoke in objection to the application, and raised concerns which included an increase in existing parking problems, access to his property particularly during the construction phase of the development, and noise.  He also disputed the number of current available parking spaces and reported on unsuccessful attempts to engage the applicant in discussions regarding the proposal.  Photographs provided by Mr Morgan to illustrate his concerns were circulated to the Committee and Members noted that the main issues from the photographs appeared to be related to the parking of service delivery vehicles.

Mr White also spoke in objection to the application and endorsed the concerns raised by Mr Morgan and asked the Committee to consider the impact of the proposed development on the neighbourhood.  He also reported on objections he had raised in relation to a previous application for development at the premises.

Mr Johnston responded to concerns raised and reported his view that he did not envisage that the proposed development, if approved, would adversely impact the amenities of nearby residents due to the proposed conditions relating to glazing of the roof terrace parapet wall and the restrictions around music and opening hours. 

During consideration of the application, the Committee acknowledged the benefits of the proposed development in terms of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.