Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Marie Gray and Alison Hansford.

To confirm the minutes of the Development Control Committee on the 4 October 2011 of Development Control Committee.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2011, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2000, the Council’s Constitution and the Members Code of Conduct the following Councillor declared a prejudicial interest in relation to the agenda item indicated.

Councillor                   Item

Simon Moulton          4a 11/00823/FUL

The Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy has submitted 12 reports 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/PublicAccess/TDC/tdc_home.aspx

The Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy submitted reports on 12 applications for planning permission to be determined.

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

(At this point Councillor Moulton withdrew from the meeting for the duration of the following item taking no part in the discussion and subsequent vote.)

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

RESOLVED (10:0:1) – That planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed in the report and addendum.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report and addendum.

(At this point Councillor France joined the meeting.)

Planning permission granted subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and conditions.

RESOLVED (11:1:1) – That planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions detailed in the report.

Decision deferred to allow Members time to visit the site of the proposals.

RESOLVED (12:1:0) – That the decision be deferred to give Members of the Development Control Committee time to visit the site of the proposals.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report on the basis that condition 24 and 25 were retained as stipulated in the application 11/00327/FUL and condition 26 be varied in line with the comments for the Council’s Planning Policy section.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That planning permission be granted subject the conditions detailed in the report.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Members were minded to refuse planning permission.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That Members were minded to refuse planning permission for the reasons outlined in the report.

To consider the enclosed enforcement report of the Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy.

The Committee received a report from the Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy which sought Members views on whether it was expedient to serve an enforcement notice in respect of the following breaches which had taken place without planning permission:

a)    material change of use of the land from agriculture to use of the land for storage purposes and as a builders yards;

b)    the erection of three industrial/storage units and;

c)    the siting of four industrial/storage containers on the land.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That it was expedient to issue an enforcement notice in respect of the breaches of planning control for the reasons outlined in the report.

To consider the enclosed enforcement report of the Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy.

The Committee received a report from the Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy which sought Members views on whether it was expedient to serve an enforcement notice in respect of failing to comply with condition number 6 attached to planning application 08/00553/FUL approved on 28 July 2008 detailed within the report.

A verbal update was provided which highlight that Go Ape did not in fact conduct any pre application consultation (this fact was wrongly recorded in the report) and that there had been some dispute over the details of the car park size and that those details would be clarified within the final report that would be brought before the Development Control Committee.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That it was not expedient at this time to take enforcement in respect of the breach of planning control for the reasons outlined in the report.

Report of the Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy (enclosed).

The Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy submitted a report which sought Members instructions on whether to confirm the Tree Preservation Order no. 5 (Coppull) 2011 with or without modification in light of the objection being received.

A letter of objection had been received from the agent on the owner of the property for the following  reason:

·         T3 &G1 did not make a valuable contribution to the visual amenity of the area as they were neither prominently situated nor clearly visible to the public.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That the Tree Preservation Order no. 5 (Coppull) 2011 be confirmed without modifications.

Report of the Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy enclosed for information.

The Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy submitted a report which gave notification of three appeals lodged, one appeal that had been dismissed, one enforcement appeal lodged, one enforcement appeal withdrawn and one application for planning permission being granted by Lancashire County Council.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

The Head of Planning informed Members of the Committee, that the Section 106 legal agreement in relation to approved planning permission for Botany Bay had been completed and the permission would be issued on 4 November 2011.