Agenda item

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 17/0060 relating to a resubmission of planning application 15/0820 for the re-development of Anchorsholme Park to include new pumping station and associated buildings, storage tank control building, six vent stacks, erection of cafe and bowling club/ maintenance building, re-contouring and landscaping of park, new amphitheatre feature, new footpaths, provision of MUGA (multi-use games area), trim trail, and children’s playground, new access from Princes Way, new walls and fencing.

Mr Shaw, Principal Planning Officer, presented the Committee with an overview of the application and the changes compared with application 15/0820 and the site layout, elevation and location plans. 

Mr Shaw advised Members that confirmation had been received from Lancashire Archaeological Advisory Service that there was no longer a requirement for the proposed condition relating to a programme of Archaeological work to be submitted.  He referred Members to the appendices to the report which listed the applicant’s responses to the concerns raised by the planning officer, Ward Councillors and local residents.

The Committee was advised that this application was a resubmission of a previous application for which planning permission had been granted in April 2016. Mr Shaw reported on the main changes between the previous and current applications and showed Members visual images of the main differences between the two applications.  The main proposed change related to the pumping station being positioned largely above ground level in a larger building but within a smaller compound area.  Other proposed changes included alterations to the design and appearance of the storage tank and café buildings, an increase of half a metre in the overall height of the Park and alterations to the landscaping and surfacing materials.   Mr Shaw reported on the applicant’s consent to the landscaping, boundary treatments, retaining walls and surfacing materials being dealt with by the imposition of conditions, should the application be approved.

Mr Patel, Group Engineer, Traffic Management, confirmed that the comments made  by the Head of Highways and Traffic Management in the Update Note would be resolved through discussions with the applicant.  Following a question by a Member of the Committee, Mr Shaw confirmed that a new Construction Management Plan would be required as a condition of any new planning permission.

Ms Firth, public objector, spoke in objection to the application on behalf of a number of local residents.  She referred to presentation slides which had been circulated to the Committee and the applicant during the meeting and raised concerns which included the potential impact on nearby residents due to the proposed siting of the pumping station above ground.  Further concerns related to the increase in the height of the Park and the negative impact on the appearance of the Park due to the change to gabion walls and steel fencing.  She also questioned the reasons behind the changes from the original application which in her view had been designed to reduce the cost of the development.

Mr Watson, Applicant, spoke in support of the application and reported on his view of the benefits of the scheme in delivering an enhanced Park and an improvement in water protection.  He reported that the changes in the current application had resulted from the contractor’s detailed design following the approval of the previous planning application and that the increased size of the building had been balanced against the benefits of an increase in the Park’s green areas.  He acknowledged the queries raised by the Ward Councillors and local residents and referred to the responses contained within the appendices to the report.  He confirmed that there would be no change from the original application in terms of noise and odour and that the fencing and landscaping could be reviewed and subject to appropriate conditions should the application be approved.  Responding to a question from the Committee regarding the reasons for the pumping station to be above ground, Mr Sharp, Project Manager, and Mr Watson reported on the initial basic design of the first application which in their view had been necessary to meet required timescales.

Cllr T Williams, Ward Councillor, reported on concerns with the proposed changes from the initial planning permission for the development, particularly in relation to an increase in the building footprint and the size of the café which in his view had been designed to reduce the overall cost of the proposed development.   Further concerns included a lack of recent consultation with local residents and a lack of confidence in the applicant’s ability to deliver on its commitment to local residents.  He asked the Committee to reject the application.

Cllr Galley, Ward Councillor, also spoke on the application and requested the Committee to consider the imposition of a number of conditions to be attached to the planning permission if granted to provide reassurance that the applicant would deliver on its original commitment to local residents.  The suggested conditions related to the installation of lighting and CCTV to improve security within the Park and enable the café  to be used in the evening, the use of sandstone surfacing as originally agreed to make the Park more aesthetically pleasing and improve connectivity between the promenade and the park.  Whilst he acknowledged the comments from Lancashire Constabulary regarding the lack of crime in the area, this was in the context of the Park being closed for a number of months.  He requested that the Committee considered the acceptability of the planning application in relation to its proximity to adjacent properties. 

Mr Shaw responded to concerns raised by reporting on the emphasis of the report in the recommendation for approval being based on the agreement of an improved quality of landscaping, hardstanding and boundary treatments and the potential for further conditions to be added relating to the installation of lighting and CCTV if the Committee was minded to approve the application.  He reassured Members of the Council’s powers to enforce against unacceptable levels of noise and odour.  In response to a question from the Committee, Ms Farley, Parks Operation Manager, reported on ongoing discussions with relevant parties to produce the best viable option for the Park.

The Committee also questioned the reasons for the pumping station being located above ground and Mr Sharp confirmed that this was a design choice to facilitate the maintenance of the pumping station and confirmed that the pumps would be used relatively infrequently to prevent flooding during severe storms although the ventilation system would be used constantly with the noise contained within the building fabric. 

The Committee held a lengthy discussion on the merits of the application, during which it raised concerns regarding the potential impact on the appearance and character of the Park as a result of the proposed changes in terms of the design of the development and quality of materials used.  It was not satisfied as to the necessity of the changes from the original approved scheme and considered that further consultation on the revised application was required to address the concerns raised.

Resolved: That the application be deferred to a future meeting to allow the opportunity for discussions to take place between the applicant, Council officers and other interested parties.

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