Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee on 10 March 2015 be approved as a correct record for signature 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.

Councillor John Dalton declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 3d 14/00791/FUL – Land 60m west of no. 3 Castle Walks, Croston and left the meeting for consideration of this item.

The Director of Public Protection, Streetscene and Community has submitted 7 reports for planning applications to be determined (enclosed).

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 7 reports for planning permission consideration.

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

The Head of Planning drew attention to addendum 2 which referred to a Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government made to the House of Parliament on 25 March 2015 and including clarification to the recent Statement of 28 November 2014 which related to small scale developers, custom and selfbuilders.

The Chair asked members of the Committee to consider the content of this statement while making their decision.

Outline consent approved subject to conditions and Construction Management Plan.

Registered speaker: Joyce Nelson (objector)

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That outline planning consent be approved subject to a condition requiring a suitable Construction Management Plan, the conditions detailed within the report in the agenda and delegated authority be given to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee, to either amend condition two in the report or apply an additional condition to protect the upper branches of trees T14 during construction.

Planning permission approved subject to conditions.

Registered speaker: Sophie Marshall (applicant’s agent)

RESOVLED (unanimously) – That planning permission be approved subject to conditions detailed in the addendum.

In response to a request for clarification from the Chair, the Legal Services Team Leader advised that as a Non-Executive Director of Adactus the Chair did not have a pecuniary interest in the following application.

Planning permission approved subject to conditions.

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

(At this point Councillor John Dalton left the meeting before the consideration of the following item.)

Planning permission refused.

Registered speaker: Graeme Luxton (applicant’s agent)

A motion was proposed and seconded for the decision to be deferred to allow time for members of the Committee to visit the site of the proposals.  When put to the vote the motion was lost (5:8:0).

RESOLVED (8:0:5) – That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.    Criteria (f) of Policy 1 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy states that in smaller villages, development will typically be small scale and limited to appropriate infilling, conversion of buildings and proposals to meet local need, unless there are exceptional reasons for larger scale development schemes. The development does not meet a specific local need and there are no exceptional reasons overriding these matters which justify granting it planning permission. The proposed development is therefore contrary to criteria (f) of Policy 1 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.

2.    There is a deficit of amenity open space in Croston and he site is identified as open space under Policy HW2 of the emerging Chorley Local Plan. Development resulting in the loss of such sites is only acceptable when alternative provision is provided. Whilst the development incorporates the retention of some of the site as open space and will open it up to the public, the amount of retained open space constitutes only a small proportion of the site so opening up this land to the public is not sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by the loss of the majority of the site. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy HW2 of the emerging Chorley Local Plan.

3.    The proposed development would lead to the loss of a large proportion of open space which makes a significant contribution to the character of the area. The reduction in the open character of the site would be contrary to criteria a) of Policy BNE1 of the emerging Chorley Local Plan which seeks to ensure development does not have a significantly detriment impact on the local area.

Planning permission approved subject to conditions.

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

Planning permission approved subject to conditions.

RESOLVED (13:0:1) – That planning permission be approved subject to conditions detailed within the report in the agenda.

Planning permission approved subject to conditions.

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

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

Members of the Committee received a report of the Director of Public Protection, Streetscene and Community which sought confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No. 10 (Whittle-le-Woods) 2014 in light of an objection received.

In response to the objection received, it was proposed that tree T6 be removed from the order as it was not within land owned by the objector and was therefore not affected by the approved planning proposals.

RESOLVED (unanimously) – That Tree Preservation Order No. 10 (Whittle-le-Woods) 2014 be confirmed with a modification removing T6 from the Order.

There are no appeals or other decisions to report.

There were no appeals or other decisions to report.