Agenda and draft 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 Baker declared a prejudicial interest in Item 12, application number 23/0848 as a family member worked for the chain of hotels owned by the applicant. Councillor Baker left the meeting for the duration of this item.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 27 February 2024 as a true and correct record.

Resolved:

To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2024 as a true and correct record.

The Planning Committee considered a report on Planning/Enforcement Appeals lodged and determined since the last meeting held on 27 February 2024.

The Committee noted the details of the five appeals lodged and the appeal that had been determined and upheld.

Resolved:

The Committee noted the update.

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 an update on planning enforcement activity within Blackpool, between 1 February 2024 and 29 February 2024.

In February 2024, 29 new cases had been registered for investigation and as at 29 February there had been 280 “live” complaints outstanding. Seven cases had been closed without recourse to formal action and 28 cases had been closed.

Resolved:

The Committee noted the update.

To consider planning application 22/0168 for the erection of part 4, 5 and 6 storey building comprising of 40 self-contained apartments with associated cycle/waste storage, and provision of 42 car parking spaces with access from Harrowside West, following demolition of existing hotel (Outline application for access, appearance, layout and scale).

The Committee considered application number 22/0168 for the Erection of part 4, 5 and 6 storey building comprising of 40 self-contained apartments with associated cycle/waste storage, and provision of 45 car parking spaces with access from Harrowside West, following demolition of existing hotel (Outline application for access, appearance, layout and scale).

Ms S Parker, Head of Development Management, advised the Committee that this application was linked to the next item on the agenda, application number 22/0178 and delivered a joint presentation outlining both applications.

Ms Parker outlined both applications and advised that these were outline applications for two part 4, 5 and 6 storey buildings on the Promenade following demolition of existing holiday accommodation on the sites. Both sites were located within the Pleasure Beach Promenade frontage and Policy CS23 was therefore relevant in respect of the loss of sites used as holiday accommodation and the need for developments to meet high design standards and deliver clear regeneration benefits. The proposal was outlined as being 40 apartments on the south site, 49 on the north site with all 89 offering permanent residential accommodation. Ms Parker advised that given the Boulevard Hotel and the recently extended Hampton by Hilton development, the expectation for a wider mix of permanent residential and holiday usage would be satisfied on balance. Neither of the sites had been allocated for housing and the Council continued to have a comfortable housing supply of approximately 14 years.

Ms Parker advised that the apartments proposed on both sites met national space standards and that most would have outdoor amenity space provided by terraces and/or balconies, with an outlook over the Promenade. Since the first submission of the applications the height of the apartments had been reduced to minimise impacts of neighbours and visual impacts. It was proposed that each block would be 18 metres tall which was taller than the Hampton by Hilton development, but no taller than the Coastal Point Development and the scale was considered to be acceptable. In respect of the main elevations, these would be light brick and white stone with full height windows and decorating curtain walling and panelling which would be arranged in ordered bays.

Access to the South Site would be via Harrowside West with ground floor parking and the North Site would be accessed via the Promenade Crescent with accommodation on the ground floor and parking to the rear. Each apartment would have at least one parking space and the local Highway Authority considered this provision to be acceptable. A loading bay would be provided for each block for servicing and waste collection, with other off-site highway works securable by condition.

In respect of amenity, Ms Parker advised that the separation distances involved would prevent undue impact. No heritage impacts had been identified for the North Site, however the South Site was within the setting of the locally-listed Solaris building, but Planning Officers considered that the scheme would improve the setting rather than harm its significance. The sites were situated within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider planning application 22/0178 for the erection of part a 4, 5 and 6 storey building comprising 49 self-contained permanent apartments with associated cycle/waste storage, and provision of 49 car parking spaces with access from New South Promenade following demolition of existing buildings (Outline application for access, appearance, layout and scale).

The Committee considered application number 22/0178 for the Erection of part a 4, 5 and 6 storey building comprising 49 self-contained permanent apartments with associated cycle/waste storage, and provision of 49 car parking spaces with access from New South Promenade following demolition of existing buildings (Outline application for access, appearance, layout and scale). Ms S Parker, Head of Development Management, advised the Committee that this application was linked to the previous item on the agenda, application number 22/0168 and delivered a joint presentation outlined both applications.

Ms Parker outlined both applications and advised that these were outline applications for two part 4, 5 and 6 storey buildings on the Promenade following demolition of existing holiday accommodation on the site. Both sites were located within the Pleasure Beach Promenade frontage and referred to Policy CS23, in respect of the loss of sites used as holiday accommodation and the need for developments to meet high design standards and deliver clear regeneration benefits. The proposal was outlined as being 40 apartments on the south site, 49 on the north site with all 89 offering permanent residential accommodation. Ms Parker advised that given the Boulevard Hotel and the recently extended Hampton by Hilton development, the expectation for a wider mix of permanent residential and holiday usage would be satisfied on balance. Neither of the sites had been allocated for housing and the Council continued to have a comfortable housing supply of approximately 14 years.

Ms Parker advised that the apartments proposed on both sites met national space standards and that most would have outdoor amenity space provided by terraces and balconies, with an outlook over the Promenade. Since the first submission of the applications the height of the apartments had been reduced to minimise impacts of neighbours and visual impacts. It was proposed that each block would be 18 metres tall which was taller than the Hampton by Hilton development, but no taller than the Coastal Point Development and the scale was considered to be acceptable. In respect of the main elevations, these would be light brick and white stone with full height windows and decorating curtain walling and panelling which would be arranged in ordered bays.

Access to the South Site would be via Harrowside West with ground floor parking and the North Site would be accessed via the Promenade Crescent with accommodation on the ground floor and parking to the rear. Each apartment would have at least one parking space and the local Highway Authority considered this provision to be acceptable. A loading bay would be provided for each block for servicing and waste collection, with other off-site highway works securable by condition.

In respect of amenity, Ms Parker advised that separation distances involved would prevent undue impact. No heritage impacts had been identified for the North Site, however the South Site was within the setting of the locally-listed Solaris building, but Planning Officers considered that the scheme would improve the setting rather than harm its significance. The sites were situated within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider the attached report for the three applications referenced. The three applications relate to the Coastal Point residential flat development. All applications share common issues in relation to the provision of car parking.

The Committee considered the background report that had been provided in relation to planning applications 23/0426, 23/0430 and 23/0440.

Ms S Parker, Head of Development Management, advised the Committee that this report was for noting and provided an overview of all three applications which would be discussed in the three subsequent agenda items. Ms S Parker outlined the report and noted that this was linked to the next two applications on the agenda, being 23/0430 and 23/0440). Ms Parker’s presentation addressed all three of the applications.

As part of the general overview of all three applications the Committee was advised that the layby on the southern side of Harrow Place outside number 10 was proposed to be unrestricted as there was sufficient parking provision within the curtilage of this property. Ms Parker asked the Committee to note that should the demand for parking permits on the scheme be less than 100% take-up then the Council may need to re-evaluate the scheme and make spaces available for general pay and display use, however any such changes would be via the Traffic Regulation Order process and not the planning process.

Resolved:

To note the background report.

To consider planning application 23/0426 for external alterations to include front extension and whole roof lift, balconies to Harrow Place and New South Promenade elevations and use of premises as altered as 66 self-contained permanent flats with associated car parking, bin store, boundary treatment and highway works.

Application under section 73 to allow the variation of condition 1 attached to planning permission 16/0421 to alter various floor layouts, relocation of gym and entrance position, removal of residents lounge in C Block, relocation of windows and amendments to highway and car parking layouts.

The Committee considered planning application 23/0426 for external alterations to include the front extension and whole roof lift, balconies to Harrow Place and New South Promenade elevations and use of premises as altered as 66 self-contained permanent flats with associated car parking, bin store, boundary treatment and highway works. The Committee also considered the application under Section 73 and 73A to allow the variation of condition 1 attached to planning permission 16/0421 to alter various floor layouts, relocation of gym and entrance position, removal of residents lounge in C Block, relocation of windows and amendments to highway and car parking layouts.

The Committee was advised that the application site was subject to a long and complex planning history and also referred to an application granted in July 2023 for the redevelopment of numbers 6-8 Harrow Place for 15 flats, which was subject to a condition preventing commencement until a parking scheme had been secured. The applications on the agenda for this meeting related to Coastal Point and although the scheme as a whole encompassed numbers 2-4 Harrow Place and number 647-655 New South Promenade, in planning application terms the flats at numbers 653-655 New South Promenade sat outside the red edge of the current applications. These were still relevant as the original planning permission 16/0421 sought to secure parking for the whole of the Coastal Point Scheme. Ms Parker advised that the Council’s original approach was innovative, as the Council was keen to facilitate development on a site with buildings in a poor state or repair, however a number of technical obstacles had become apparent which had then delayed any progress. In addition to this, the Coastal Point development under planning application 16/0421 did not progress in accordance with the original permission granted due to various reasons. At this juncture the Committee was reminded that breach of planning control was not in itself justification for formal planning action unless that breach resulted in material planning harm.

Ms Parker continued to outline the planning history and the timeline of the current applications, along with the application for 6-8 Harrow Place approved in July 2023. A new parking arrangement was devised to meet the requirements of all applications and in order to achieve this, both developers would need to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement. The Applicant for the three applications to be determined by the Committee tonight could enter into their Section 106 Agreement though those applications and the applicant for 6-8 Harrow Place had been advised to submit a discharge of condition application to enter into their Section 106 agreement. Ms Parker noted that draft legal agreements had not been issued for inclusion with the agenda but these would be issued as soon as possible.

Ms Parker continued to outline the position in respect of the Section 106 agreements and, under those agreements, both developers would be required to dedicate an area of land to deliver parking provision, with both paying a capital contribution to provision, and liable to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider planning application 23/0430 for the conversion of previously approved single flat to 2no. self-contained permanent flats.

The Committee considered planning application 23/0430 Conversion of previously approved single flat to two self contained permanent flats in respect of Flat, 25, Coastal Point.

The Committee was advised that the application site was subject to a long and complex planning history and also referred to an application granted in July 2023 for the redevelopment of numbers 6-8 Harrow Place for 15 flats, which was subject to a condition preventing commencement until a parking scheme had been secured. The applications on the agenda for this meeting related to Coastal Point and although the scheme as a whole encompassed numbers 2-4 Harrow Place and number 647-655 New South Promenade, in planning application terms the flats at numbers 653-655 New South Promenade sat outside the red edge of the current applications. These were still relevant as the original planning permission 16/0421 sought to secure parking for the whole of the Coastal Point Scheme. Ms Parker advised that the Council’s original approach was innovative as the Council was keen to facilitate development on a site with buildings in a poor state or repair, however a number of technical obstacles had become apparent which had then delayed any progress. In addition to this, the Coastal Point development under planning application 16/0421 did not progress in accordance with the original permission granted due to various reasons. At this juncture the Committee was reminded that breach of planning control was not in itself justification for formal planning action unless that breach resulted in material planning harm.

Ms Parker continued to outline the planning history and the timeline of the current applications, along with the application for 6-8 Harrow Place approved in July 2023. A new parking arrangement was devised to meet the requirements of all applications and in order to achieve this, both developers would need to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement. The Applicant for the three applications to be determined by the Committee tonight could enter into their Section 106 Agreement though those applications and the applicant for 6-8 Harrow Place had been advised to submit a discharge of condition application to enter into their Section 106 agreement. Ms Parker noted that draft legal agreements had not been issued for inclusion with the agenda but these would be issued as soon as possible.

Ms Parker continued to outline the position in respect of the Section 106 agreements and under those agreements, both developers would be required to dedicate an area of land to deliver parking provision, with both paying a capital contribution to provision, and liable to pay for parking for a five-year period. The parking scheme for the three applications before the Committee would have 87 spaces for 88 flats which was not a 1:1 ratio, but was considered to be the best overall solution. Ms Parker summarised the process that would be followed once all Section 106 agreements had been completed and the Committee was advised that a Traffic Regulation Order would be required to enable the Council to use the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To consider planning application 23/0440 for the use of part of ground floor as 2 self-contained permanent flats.

The Committee considered planning application 23/0440 for the use of part of ground floor as two self-contained permanent flats.

The Committee was advised that the application site was subject to a long and complex planning history and also referred to an application granted in July 2023 for the redevelopment of numbers 6-8 Harrow Place for 15 flats, which was subject to a condition preventing commencement until a parking scheme had been secured. The applications on the agenda for this meeting related to Coastal Point and although the scheme as a whole encompassed numbers 2-4 Harrow Place and number 647-655 New South Promenade, in planning application terms the flats at numbers 653-655 New South Promenade sat outside the red edge of the current applications. These were still relevant as the original planning permission 16/0421 sought to secure parking for the whole of the Coastal Point Scheme. Ms Parker advised that the Council’s original approach was innovative as the Council was keen to facilitate development on a site with buildings in a poor state or repair, however a number of technical obstacles had become apparent which had then delayed any progress. In addition to this, the Coastal Point development under planning application 16/0421 did not progress in accordance with the original permission granted due to various reasons. At this juncture the Committee was reminded that breach of planning control was not in itself justification for formal planning action unless that breach resulted in material planning harm.

Ms Parker continued to outline the planning history and the timeline of the current applications, along with the application for 6-8 Harrow Place approved in July 2023. A new parking arrangement was devised to meet the requirements of all applications and in order to achieve this, both developers would need to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement. The Applicant for the three applications to be determined by the Committee tonight could enter into their Section 106 Agreement through those applications and the applicant for 6-8 Harrow Place had been advised to submit a discharge of condition application to enter into their Section 106 agreement. Ms Parker noted that draft legal agreements had not been issued for inclusion with the agenda but these would be issued as soon as possible.

Ms Parker continued to outline the position in respect of the Section 106 agreements and under those agreements, both developers would be required to dedicate an area of land to deliver parking provision, with both paying a capital contribution to provision, and liable to pay for parking for a five-year period. The parking scheme for the three applications before the Committee would have 87 spaces for 88 flats which was not a 1:1 ratio, but was considered to be the best overall solution. Ms Parker summarised the process that would be followed once all Section 106 agreements had been completed and the Committee was advised that a Traffic Regulation Order would be required to enable the Council to use the highway for parking or to restrict  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To consider planning application 23/0830 for:

A hybrid application comprising of :

Outline - Erection of buildings for use as an education-led mixed use development comprising a new education campus building (Use Class F1(a)) and further education floorspace (Use Class F1(a)) and/or office floorspace (Class E(g)), creation of new public realm with associated landscaping, car parking and associated works.

Full - Demolition of existing building and structures.

The Committee considered planning application 23/0830 which was a Hybrid application comprising of Full planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and structures and Outline planning permission for the erection of buildings for use as an education-led mixed use development comprising a new education campus building (Use Class F1(a)) and further education floor space (Use Class F1(a)) and/or office floor space (Class E(g)), creation of new public realm with associated landscaping, car parking and associated works.

Ms S Parker, Head of Development Management, outlined the report and provided the Committee with an overview of the application which was to enable the new education campus to be occupied by Blackpool and the Fylde College and would be known as the “Multiversity”. The application proposed the clearance of land between George Street to the north, Milbourne Street to the south, Cookson Street to the west and Grosvenor Street to the east.

The Committee was advised that it was proposed for the development to be phased with Phase 1 being for education use with Phase 2 offering flexibility for the provision of additional educational floor space if required. Alternatively the space could be used for new office accommodation to in the Talbot Gateway area.

Ms Parker advised the Committee that the application was for full permission for demolition, and outline permission for the new floor space. Whilst all matters were reserved, the information submitted indicated a pedestrianised plaza to be created along with a modern building with glazing. The lighting suggested would provide animation in the evening and the building would facilitate renewable energy generation and have a green roof area. The Committee was advised that the location was visually sensitive due to the proximity to the Town Centre Conservation Area, its prominent position and the proximity to statutorily and locally listed buildings, including Blackpool Tower. As such, this development required an Environmental Impact Assessment. Ms Parker noted that the Environmental Statement had been submitted but not fully agreed by both parties and work was continuing on this.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Note and the clarification of recommendations which would preclude the grant of planning permission until the Environmental Statement had been fully agreed, until Active Travel England had confirmed that it had no objection and also until the Secretary of State had confirmed that the application would not be called in. In respect of Active Travel England, Ms Parker informed the Committee that an objection had been received in relation to a lack of cycling infrastructure and its response was awaited to a revised Transport Assessment. Additional representations had been received as detailed in the Update Note and the Committee was reminded that that the application had been publicised in full accordance with all statutory requirements.

In terms of regeneration the Multiversity would accommodate more than 3,600 learners, would generate 190 new jobs and support local shops and services. In addition, it would provide important regeneration in one of Blackpool’s most deprived areas and the Talbot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To consider planning application 23/0848 for the erection of a part 5, part 6 storey hotel with 143 bedrooms and ancillary facilities, with car parking to rear accessed from Woodfield Road and landscaped external seating area to front.

(Councillor Baker having declared a prejudicial interest left the room during consideration of this item and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon).

The Committee considered planning application 23/0848 for the Erection of a part 5, part 6 storey hotel with 143 bedrooms and ancillary facilities, with car parking to rear accessed from Woodfield Road and landscaped external seating area to front.

Ms S Parker, Head of Development Management, outlined the report and provided the Committee with an overview of the site which had previously accommodated the four storey St Chad’s Terrace, Lyric Hotel and Regency Holiday Flats. The site was situated within the Resort Core, Defined Inner Area and the South Beach Promenade frontage. The Committee was advised that future growth and regeneration in Blackpool was focussed on the Inner Area and the Resort Core, as set out in Policies CS1 and CS21 and therefore the development was welcomed in this location.

Ms Parker outlined the proposed building which would be taller than the surrounding buildings, however the scale was considered to be appropriate and would provide a high quality, visually engaging building. Public art would be provided within the fabric of the building and this would accord with Policy DM25. No adverse amenity impacts had been identified. Some representations had been received in relation to the application and these had been addressed in the Committee Report.

In terms of planning obligations, the Committee was advised that tree planting would apply to the application and this would be addressed by onsite planting and innovative greening measures.

In respect of highways, Ms Parker noted that 28 spaces would be provided to the rear of the site which was a lesser provision than previous uses of the site, however the proposed provision was considered to be more suitable and safer in terms of highway safety. Car parking would be managed by the hotel and the site was accessible by public transport.

The Committee was advised that 10% biodiversity net gain was not a requirement for the scheme and that no unacceptable impacts on environmental quality were anticipated. The building would aim to achieve a BREEAM rating of ‘very good’ in order to accord with Policy CS10.

Ms Parker advised the Committee that the scheme was considered to be of high quality and would improve the appearance of the Promenade, supporting the Council’s regeneration strategy and vision. The Committee was asked to support the application subject to the conditions listed in the Committee Report.

Mr S Norris spoke in objection to the application and advised that he was generally supportive of the application, however he raised concerns in respect of parking on Woodfield Road. In addition Mr Norris informed the Committee that the demolition works had been carried out without adequate consultation with local businesses and residents.

Mr I White spoke in objection to the application and indicated that he too was broadly supportive of the proposals. He thanked the applicant for consulting with businesses and residents to address  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

To consider planning application 23/0824 for the erection of a single storey building for use as a community centre with associated soft landscaping and boundary treatment following demolition of existing building at Blackpool Youth Centre (Boys and Girls Club) Victory Road.

(Councillor Baker having declared a prejudicial interest and having left the room for Item 12, returned to the meeting at this point).

The Committee considered planning application 23/0824 for the erection of a single storey building for use as a community centre with associated soft landscaping and boundary treatment following demolition of existing building.

Ms S Parker, Head of Development Management, outlined the application and advised that the building would accommodate the Blackpool Youth and Community Centre, known as the ‘Boys and Girls Club’. The site was within the Talbot and Brunswick Integrated Neighbourhood Improvement Area, bound by Victory Road, Gorton Street, George Street and Caunce Street.

The Committee was advised that the building would be constructed of brick with timber cladding and the provision of green walls and artwork and that the existing prefabricated building would likely be relocated for use elsewhere. In terms of site designation, the proposed site was Open Space, however the development was considered to be acceptable as it would be a replacement facility of equivalent or better provision. The proposed new space would provide community facilities to include an activity hall, activity rooms and a canteen and would be funded by the Youth Investment Fund.

The proposed scheme was considered to be acceptable in principle, no green infrastructure would be lost and four trees would be provided in accordance with the Greening Blackpool Supplementary Planning Document. The site was adjacent to a multi-use games area and children’s play area and would serve the local walk-in catchment. No issues had been identified in relation to highways safety or parking, nor for drainage, flood risk, ecology nor environmental quality.

Ms Parker addressed matters of security and noted that solid roller shutters were proposed, however these would be sensitively incorporated into the fabric of the building and artwork would be included to soften the appearance of the shutters. In respect of fencing, although tall fencing was not ideal, this was considered to be acceptable for the application due to antisocial behaviour within the area.

Ms Parker drew the Committee’s attention to an anonymous representation that had been received in relation to the application that related to design and security.

The application was considered to be acceptable and the Committee was asked to approve the application subject to the conditions listed in the Committee Report.

The Committee discussed the application and noted that the application had been amended and improved and was a much needed facility in that area of Blackpool.

Resolved:

To approve the application subject to the conditions listed in the Committee Report.

To consider planning application 24/0029 for the creation of 2.9m wide vehicle access and installation of gates to East Park Drive elevation at 24 Stanley Park Close.

The Committee considered application number 24/0029 for the creation of a 2.9 metre wide vehicle access and installation of gates to East Park Drive elevation.

Ms S Parker, Head of Development Management, outlined the report and noted that this was a householder application for a house accessed off Stanley Park Close via a private driveway. The previous planning history for the site was outlined and the Committee was advised that a previous application had been refused in 1990, however the dwellings that would have been affected by that application were now demolished.

The Committee was advised that the access would create a private drive and sole access to the property due to long-standing issues in relation to obstruction, though this was not a material consideration. Ms Parker advised that the key consideration for the Committee was the impact on highway safety and also the impact on the Stanley Park Conservation Area.

Ms Parker drew the Committee’s attention to two representations that had been received, with one in support and which outlined the difficulties that the applicant had encountered when accessing their property. The other representation was in partial support but did raise highways concerns. Ms Parker assured the Committee that all relevant matters had been considered as part of the highways assessment of the application and that the local Highway Authority had no objections to the proposals. The Applicant had also provided further representation as included within the Update Note.

The scheme was not considered to have an impact on residential amenity and the design was also considered acceptable, with no harm to the character or heritage value of the Stanley Park Conservation Area. The Committee was advised that an existing tree would be safeguarded by condition and that replacement hedgerow planting would also be secured.

Ms Parker asked the Committee to approve the application subject to the conditions outlined in the Committee Report.

The Committee discussed the application and the Chair of the Committee noted that she had requested that the application come before the Committee due to concerns in relation to proximity to Stanley Park and the impact on East Park Drive.

In response to questions from the Committee, Ms Parker advised that there no particular concerns in relation to precedent and was expected to be an isolated application. Mr K Allen, Highways Officer, advised that in his opinion there were no grounds for refusal and it was likely that an appeal against refusal would succeed.

Resolved:

To grant the application subject to the conditions set out in the Committee Report.

To note the date of the next meeting will be confirmed at the Annual Council meeting to be held on 15 May 2024.

The Committee was advised that the date of the next meeting was subject to approval of the 2024/2025 Committee Meeting Schedule at Annual Council in May 2024.