To confirm the minutes of the Development Control Committee held on 8 July 2014 as a correct record and be signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Development Control Committee held on 8 July 2014 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda.

If you have a pecuniary interest you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

There were no declarations of interest submitted.

The Director of Public Protection, Streetscene and Community submitted twelve reports (of which 2 are to follow) for planning applications to be determined (enclosed).

Please note that copies of the location and layout plans are in a separate pack (where applicable) that has come with your agenda.  Plans to be considered will be displayed at the meeting or may be viewed in advance by following the links to the current planning applications on our website.  http://planning.chorley.gov.uk/online-applications/

The Director of Public Protection, Streetscene and Community submitted twelve applications for planning permission consideration.

In considering the applications, Members of the Development Control Committee took into account the agenda reports, the addendum, and verbal representations and submissions provided by officers and individuals.

Planning permission refused.

Speakers:  Agent for the objector – Chris Weetman, Parish Councillor – Harold Heaton (Charnock Richard Parish Council), Ward Councillor – Councillor Paul Leadbetter, applicant’s agent – Dan Mitchell

RESOLVED (unanimously) - That the planning permission be refused on the grounds that the impact of the development would cause significant harm to the openness of the surrounding area and the benefits of the development would not outweigh the harm.  That harm was significant to warrant refusal and that the framing of the reason for refusal be passed to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee and be recorded in the minutes for the meeting. 

The Chair and Vice Chair subsequently agreed the following reason for refusal and in accordance with the resolution above this reason is recorded below:

1.    The Chair and Vice Chair subsequently agreed the following reason for refusal and in accordance with the resolution above this reason is recorded below: The proposed development is not small scale or limited to appropriate infilling, conversion of buildings or meeting local need and is therefore contrary, in the absence of exceptional reasons for the large scale redevelopment proposed, to Policy 1 of the Adopted Central Lancashire Core Strategy and the spatial vision that underlies it. The proposed development would also have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within in than the existing development on that part of the site that is previously developed and would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Substantial weight attaches to the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and further harm arising here by reason of the impact of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt. The benefits associated with the proposed development would not clearly outweigh the harm resulting and therefore constitute, individually or cumulatively, very special circumstances required if inappropriate development is to be approved in the Green Belt in accordance with paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’). The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at paragraph 14 of the Framework is not considered, for these reasons, to apply to the proposed development.

Outline planning permission approved subject to an associated Section 106 legal agreement and conditions

Speakers: Objector – Ian Paterson, supporter – Stella Thompson, Parish Councillor – Grahame Green (Mawdesley Parish Council) and the applicant’s agent – Justin Cove

A motion to refuse the outline planning permission on the grounds that the special circumstances demonstrated did not outweigh the harm that the development would cause in that:

1.         There was no requirement for affordable homes in Mawdesley

2.         The emerging Local Plan stated that the only development for Gorsey Lane should only be infill developments.

3.         Due to other business park developments in the area, moving the Goodyear furniture business would make it unsustainable

4.         The Goodyear furniture business was sustainable in its current location

When the motion was put to the vote the vote was lost (6:9:0)

RESOLVED (10:4:1) – That the outline planning permission be approved subject to an associated Section 106 legal agreement and conditions detailed in the addendum.

Outline planning permission approved subject to a associated Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That the outline planning permission be approved subject to an associated Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed within the report in the agenda.

Outline planning permission approved subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That the Outline planning permission be approved subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed within the report in the agenda.

Full planning permission approved subject to conditions

SPEAKER: Applicant’s agent – Andrew Bickerdike

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That full planning permission be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report in the agenda and the additional condition detailed in the addendum.

Full planning permission approved subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.

Speaker: Applicant’s agent – Simon Pemberton

RESOLVED (unanimously) - That full planning permission be approved subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed in the addendum.

The reserved matters planning permission approved subject to conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That planning permission for the reserved matters application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report in the agenda.

Full planning permission approved subject to conditions.

RESOVLED (unanimously) – That full planning permission be approved subject to conditions detailed within the report in the agenda.

Outline planning permission approved subject to conditions.

RESOLVED (14:1:0) – That the outline planning permission be approved subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed within the report in the agenda.

Planning permission approved subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That planning permission be approved subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed within the report in the agenda and the amended condition detailed in the addendum.

Full planning permission approved subject to conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That full planning permission be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report in the agenda.

Full planning permission approved subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That full planning permission be approved subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed within the report in the agenda.

Report of the Head of Governance (enclosed).

The Head of Governance submitted a report which asked Members of the Development Control Committee to consider whether the diversion of a section of public footpath number 31 Coppull be confirmed as an unopposed order to facilitate the development of 8 two bedroomed bungalows for affordable rent.

No objections had been received.  A verbal update was given to Members of the Development Control Committee to the effect that the Public Rights of Way Officer at Lancashire County Council was satisfied that works required under the order had been satisfactorily completed,

RESOLVED (unanimously) –

1.         That the Public Footpath Diversion Order for a length of public footpath number 31 Coppull made on 16 January 2014 pursuant to Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 be confirmed as an unopposed order.

2.         That the Head of Governance be authorised to serve notice regarding the confirmation of the order on prescribed persons and arrange for notice in the local press and on site, and certify the order as being complied with having regard to any representations from the Public Rights of Way Team at Lancashire County Council or to confirm the order in the absence of representation from the Public Rights of Way Team and certify its terms as being complied with.

Report of the Head of Governance (enclosed).

Members of the Development Control Committee considered a report from the Head of Governance which recommended formal confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order number 1 (Whittle-le-Woods) without modification.

No objections had been received in response to the making of the order.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That formal confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order number 1 (Whittle-le-Woods) be approved.

Report from the Head of Governance (enclosed).

Members of the Development Control Committee considered a report from the Head of Governance which recommended formal confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order number 3 (Clayton-le-Woods) without modification.

No objections had been received in response to the making of the order.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That formal confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order number 3 (Clayton-le-Woods) be approved.

Report of the Director of Public Protection, Streetscene and Community (enclosed).

The Director of Public Protection, Streetscene and Community submitted a report which informed Members of the Development Control Committee of –

·                two appeals that had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate against the delegated decision to refuse full planning permission.

·                an enforcement appeal that had been withdrawn from the Planning Inspectorate

·                and; two planning applications from Lancashire County Council

-     a decision to vary condition number 3 of planning permission 09/13/0185

-     the erection of a new single storey extension planning application number 14/00556/CTY.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.