Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest on this occasion.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 22 November 2016 as a true and correct record.

The Committee considered the minutes of the last meeting held on 22 November 2016.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2016 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Committee noted the Planning Inspector’s decisions to dismiss appeals against the Council’s refusal of planning permission in respect of the following planning applications:

Planning Application 15/0229 requesting permission to use part of the rear garden of 6-8 Carlin Gate as a communal garden in association with the existing care homes at 4 St Stephens Avenue and 4 Carlin Gate following the demolition of existing rear extensions at the rear of 6-8 Carlin Gate.

Planning Application 15/0227 requesting permission to erect a roof lift to the existing single storey rear extension of 4 St Stephens Avenue to provide five additional bedrooms and a lounge and the provision of three additional car parking spaces following the removal of an existing storage building.

Planning Application 15/0713 requesting permission for the installation of a new shopfront, erection of a single storey rear extension and use of the ground floor rear as one self-contained flat at 26-28 Red Bank Road.

The Committee also noted that two appeals had been lodged in respect of the properties at 3-5 Reads Avenue. The appeals were against the Council’s refusal to grant a Certificate of Lawful Development for Proposed Use to use the premises as 10 self-contained permanent flats and the Council’s refusal of planning permission for the removal of conditions 3 and 5 attached to planning permission 80/0013 to allow the use of the premises as 10 self-contained permanent flats.

An appeal had also been submitted in respect of 56 Springfield Road against the Council’s refusal of planning permission for the formation of vehicular crossing.

Resolved:  To note the planning and enforcement appeals lodged and determined.

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 November 2016.  The report stated that 72 new cases had been registered for investigation, eight cases had been resolved by negotiation without recourse to formal action and 54 cases had been closed as there was either no breach of planning control found, no action was appropriate or it was not considered expedient to take action.

Two enforcement notices had also been served during the same period.

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.

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee considered an application in respect of 38-40 Springfield Road and 10-10A Lord Street for external alterations including re-instatement of bay windows and formation of second floor balconies to the Springfield Road and Lord Street elevations, and use of the premises as altered as 11 self-contained permanent flats with associated landscaping, boundary treatment, bin and cycle stores, following demolition of the existing sun lounges and dormers.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management, gave the Committee a brief overview of the application including a visual image of the properties and the site layout plans.  He reported that, although the three properties were within the Lord Street Main Holiday Accommodation Area, 38 Springfield Road had ceased trading as a hotel approximately five years ago and since that time had been the subject of enforcement investigations relating to its use, 10 Lord Street had not traded as a hotel since 2010 and 40 Springfield Road currently only traded as a hotel at weekends during the main holiday season.  Mr Johnston advised that the applicant had submitted evidence to demonstrate that bringing the properties back into hotel use was not a viable option.  Mr Johnston also considered that due to the siting of the properties they did not contribute significantly to the character of the Lord Street Main Holiday Accommodation Area.  Although the proposed development would result in a reduction in parking spaces, the number of spaces was considered sufficient given the high accessibility of the location.

Mr Johnston reported that the Head of Traffic and Highway Safety had raised no objection in principle to the proposed development and referred Members to proposed condition 10 which required an approved Construction Management Plan to be put in place prior to the commencement of any development, should permission be granted.

Mrs Madden spoke in support of the proposed development which in her view would bring both a community and economic benefit to the area from the introduction of affordable housing.  She also reported on a petition with 23 signatures that had been submitted in support of the proposed development.

The Committee discussed the merits of the application and acknowledged the loss of a small number of parking spaces but considered it acceptable given the accessibility of the site and its relationship to the town centre, bus and rail services.  The Committee considered that on balance the benefits of the proposed development outweighed the loss of hotel accommodation in this location.

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 an application for the erection of six private dwelling houses with access from Common Edge Road, with associated car parking and landscaping works.

Mr Johnston gave a brief overview of the proposed development and presented a visual image of the site and site layout plans.  The Committee was advised of previous planning applications that had been submitted, with the latest being refused by the Planning Committee for four reasons which were the detrimental impact on the setting of the Listed Cottages on Fishers Lane, the detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Marton Moss Countryside Area, the potential adverse effect on the integrity of the Listed Cottages and concerns regarding drainage and potential flooding in the area.  A subsequent appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission was dismissed by the Planning Inspector with the sole factor warranting dismissal being the impact on the setting of the Listed Cottages.

Mr Johnston reported on the Core Strategy which indicated that the Council consistently meets its five year housing supply requirement although in his view this in itself would not be considered sufficient to justify refusal of the application.  He also reported on Core Strategy Policies CS8 and CS26 relating to Heritage and the Marton Moss Countryside Area and outlined the circumstances in which development would be considered acceptable. 

Mr Johnston reported on the amendments to the application that sought to address the Planning Inspector’s concerns which included a greater distance between the Listed Cottages on Fishers Lane and the proposed dwelling houses and a greater area of open land in front of the Listed Cottages. 

Ms Briscoe spoke in objection to the application and voiced concerns relating to the detrimental impact on the relationship between the Listed Cottages and the adjoining land should planning permission be granted.  She referred to the factors considered by the Secretary of State in relation to the previous application and the National Planning Policy Framework which placed significant weight on the conservation of heritage assets.  In her view, the current proposal was not significantly different to the previous application.

Mr De Pol, Agent acting on behalf of the Applicant, spoke in support of the application and reported on the amendments that, in his view, addressed the concerns raised by the Planning Inspector.  Those changes included a reduction in the number of proposed dwellings from eight to six, a greater distance between the Listed Cottages and proposed dwellings, and an increase in the open space area in front of the Listed Cottages.  

Responding to a question from the Chairman, Mr Johnston confirmed that proposed condition 13 required an initial archaeological investigation, followed by regular monitoring during the development.

The Committee considered the merits of the application and, in doing so, had particular regard to its impact on the setting of the Listed Cottages. Whilst it acknowledged the concerns raised by the neighbouring residents, it was satisfied that the amended proposal had addressed the Planning Inspector’s concerns that had led to the  ...  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.

Prior to consideration of the above application, the Committee was advised that the Applicant had requested that consideration of the application be deferred until its meeting on 14 February 2017 to enable the Applicant’s Agent to enter into discussions with the Head of Traffic and Highway Safety regarding the concerns raised in the Update Note. 

Resolved:  To defer consideration of the application to the meeting scheduled for 14 February 2017. 

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.