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.

Councillor D Coleman declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 5, Planning Application 20/0219, 124 Norbreck Road.  The nature of the interest being that she worked within the industry sector.

Councillor Stansfield declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5, Planning Application 20/0219, 124 Norbreck Road.  The nature of the interest being that he worked within the industry sector but outside of the Blackpool borough.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 4 August 2020 as a true and correct record.

The Planning Committee considered the minutes of the last meeting held on 4 August 2020 and noted that Councillor Rick Scott had been present but as ward Councillor for Greenlands Ward and not Warbreck ward as shown in the minutes and that he had been speaking on behalf of the residents of that ward.

Resolved:  that the minutes of the last meeting held on 4 August 2020 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to the amendment detailed above.

The Planning Committee received a report on the planning appeals lodged and determined since the last meeting. 

The report stated that that an appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for the erection of a single storey side extension at 29 Webster Avenue, Blackpool had been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. 

The Planning Inspectorate had also dismissed an appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for use of the premises at Unit 2, Woodman Centre, Vicarage Lane, Blackpool.

The benefits of the upheld decisions in terms of resisting future appeal decisions was also reported.

Resolved:  To note the report.

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 the summary of planning enforcement activity within Blackpool between 1 July 2020 and 31 July 2020.

The report stated that 63 new cases had been registered for investigation with 612 complaints remaining outstanding by the end of the period, 26 cases had been resolved by negotiation without recourse to formal action and 88 cases had been closed as there had either been no breach of planning control found, no action was appropriate or it had not been considered expedient to take action.

The report also stated that one enforcement notice had been authorised between 1 July 2020 and 31 July 2020.

The Committee noted the significant workload involved in undertaking planning enforcement activities.

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.

To consider planning application 20/0129 for the use of the property as a residential care home for up to two persons aged 8-17 at 124 Norbreck Road.

The Committee considered planning application 20/0219 that sought permission for the use of a bungalow at 124 Norbreck Road as a residential care home for up to two persons aged 8-17 years old.

Ms Parker, Head of Development Management, provided an overview of the application and presented site location and layout plans and an aerial view of the site.  She reminded the Committee that it had deferred the application at its last meeting to allow for investigations to be made into the use of the facility at 66-66a Norbreck Road, Blackpool which was located within 400 metres of the application site.  Following a visit to the premises at 66-66a Norbreck Road, Blackpool and discussions with the operator of the facility and colleagues from the Council’s Children’s Services department, Ms Parker confirmed her view that the facility supported living accommodation for young people aged 16 to 18 years of age and she reported on the differences between this and a children’s home.  In her view, the use of the two premises was materially different in planning terms and as such the locational requirements of Policy BH24 for the current planning application had been met. Ms Parker also advised the Committee on another concern raised recently regarding a further property at 11 Guildford Avenue, Blackpool which was also within 400 metres of the application site, however, following a visit to the property, she was satisfied that this was a private dwelling. 

Ms Parker referred the Committee to the support for the application from the Council’s Children’s Services department and the lack of objection from the Head of Transportation. Referring to the comments made by Environmental Protection, Ms Parker suggested that, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, a further condition should be added to the planning permission to secure sound proofing to protect the amenity of residents of neighbouring properties. She also referred to the recommendation for the Committee to agree the application in principle and delegate approval to the Head of Development Management subject to conditions and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement requiring the young people to be placed in the care home by, or in agreement with, Blackpool Council. 

Ms Kerrone, member of the public, spoke in objection to the application.  Her main concerns included the impact on the residential amenity and character of the area and the potential for the proposal to undermine efforts to promote community cohesion.  Further concerns related to the impact on vulnerable residents from an exacerbation of the existing anti-social behaviour and crime issues in the area.  She also advised on her view of how the proposal would conflict with the aims of Policy BH24.

Mr Lee, applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He referred to the key assumptions made by objectors relating to age which, in his view, could not lawfully be considered and fear of anti-social behaviour which might not come to fruition.  He also referred to the facility at 66-66a Norbreck Road and advised on his view  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider planning application 20/0352 for the erection of a four storey extension to the hotel to form an additional 74 bedrooms; single storey rear extension, plantroom on the roof and additional parking spaces to the rear, with new access and egress to the car park.

NOTE:  Councillor D Coleman re-joined the meeting prior to consideration of this item.

The Committee considered planning application 20/0352 that sought permission for the erection of a four storey extension to the hotel to form an additional 74 bedrooms; single storey rear extension, plantroom on the roof and additional parking spaces to the rear, with new access and egress to the car park.

Ms Parker, Head of Development Management, provided an overview of the application and presented site location and layout plans and an aerial view of the site. She also referred to the update note that proposed the removal of condition 12 should permission be granted, and a flyer sent by the applicant to neighbouring residents.  Ms Parker advised that the proposed extension replicated the design of the original building.  She also reported on the planned reconfiguration of the existing car park to provide a single access route and repairs to the alleyway.  She advised on her view of the benefits of the proposal in terms of the quality of the development and contribution to the resort’s hotel offer.  Ms Parker reminded the Committee that commercial competition was not a valid planning consideration.  She also referred to the requirement for a construction management plan should the application be approved which would control the hours of construction and highlighted the proposed CCTV provision to mitigate anti-social behaviour.  Whilst Ms Parker acknowledged the limited on-street parking provision, she highlighted the accessible location and the requirement for a travel plan to be agreed through a relevant condition.

Mr Pyatt, member of the public, spoke in objection to the application.  In his view the proposed development represented a breach of the core principles of town and country planning and would result in a loss of jobs. He also advised on his view of the impact that the proposed development would have on existing local businesses.  He also raised concerns regarding the operators and referred to previous issues experienced during the construction of the hotel.  Further issues related to the lack of capacity in the existing utilities infrastructure and the impact on residents from increased demand on these resources, and anti-social behaviour concerns.

Mrs Whadcock, member of the public, also spoke in objection to the application.  Her main concerns included the impact on her livelihood and increased parking issues following the opening of the hotel.  She advised on her view of the lack of transport surveys undertaken and the significant level of traffic in the area. Further concerns related to the hotel’s policy of not charging its guests for car parking which in her view impacted negatively on the availability of on-street parking in the area and she suggested that parking issues could be mitigated by the hotel changing its policy and offering free parking to its guests.

Ms Wright, member of the public and local resident, also spoke in objection to the application.  Her main concern related to her view of the significant parking issues experienced in the area.

Mr Mathison  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To note the date of next meeting as 29 September 2020.

The Committee noted the date of the next meeting as 29 September 2020.