Agenda, decisions and minutes

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.

No interests were declared.

Resolved: The minutes of the meeting were (unanimously) approved as a correct record.

The Director (Planning and Development) has submitted nine items 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. 

https://planning.chorley.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application   

The Director (Planning and Development) has submitted nine items 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. 

https://planning.chorley.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application   

Outline planning permission granted, subject to conditions.

After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Alan Whittaker, seconded by Councillor Gordon France, that members refused officer recommendations were rejected. It was then proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor Alistair Morwood that officer recommendations were approved.

It was resolved 8:3:0 that outline planning permission was granted, subject to conditions.

Planning permission refused for the following reasons:

1)    The proposed development would result in an unacceptable reduction in the type and quantity of employment land supply contrary to policy 10 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.

2)    The application site is proposed in isolation from residential development patterns and associated amenities resulting in an unsustainable form of development. It would fail to provide connectivity with supporting amenities, which means that the development does not integrate or function well with the surrounding area. The proposal does not, therefore, secure a high-quality inclusive design. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Public speaker: George Stevenson (applicant)

After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Danny Gee, seconded by Councillor Adrian Lowe and subsequently resolved 10:0:1 that planning permission was refused for the following reasons:

1)    The proposed development would result in an unacceptable reduction in the type and quantity of employment land supply contrary to policy 10 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy.

2)    The application site is proposed in isolation from residential development patterns and associated amenities resulting in an unsustainable form of development. It would fail to provide connectivity with supporting amenities, which means that the development does not integrate or function well with the surrounding area. The proposal does not, therefore, secure a high-quality inclusive design. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Decision deferred to allow Members of the Planning Committee the opportunity to visit the site.

Public speakers: Mike Matulewicz (objector) and Councillor Margaret France (Ward Councillor).

After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Martin Boardman, seconded by Councillor Gordon France that the item was deferred to allow a site visit.

It was resolved 9:2:0 that the decision was deferred to allow Members of the Planning Committee the opportunity to visit the site.

Planning permission approved, subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement.

Public speakers: Hilary Hughes (objector) and Richard Bramley (agent)

After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Alistair Morwood, seconded by Councillor Danny Gee and resolved unanimously that planning permission was approved, subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement.

Planning permission granted, subject to conditions.

After careful consideration it was proposed by Councillor Martin Boardman, seconded by Councillor Jean Sherwood and subsequently resolved 10:0:1 that planning permission granted, subject to conditions.

Listed building consent granted, subject to conditions.

After careful consideration it was proposed by Councillor Martin Boardman, seconded by Councillor Jean Sherwood and subsequently resolved 10:0:1 that listed building consent was granted, subject to conditions.  

Permission in principal was refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would be located within the Green Belt as defined by the Chorley Local Plan 2012 – 2026. The proposed development is not considered to represent limited infilling and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, harmful by definition. It is not considered that there are very special circumstances to overcome the definitional harm to the Green Belt. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy 1(f) of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and policy HS7 of the Chorley Local Plan 2012 – 2026.

After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Alistair Morwood, seconded by Aaron Beaver and subsequently resolved unanimously that permission in principal was refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would be located within the Green Belt as defined by the Chorley Local Plan 2012 – 2026. The proposed development is not considered to represent limited infilling and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, therefore, harmful by definition. It is not considered that there are very special circumstances to overcome the definitional harm to the Green Belt. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy 1(f) of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and policy HS7 of the Chorley Local Plan 2012 – 2026.

Planning permission approved, subject to conditions.

After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor Adrian Lowe, and subsequently resolved unanimously that Planning permission was approved, subject to conditions.

Permission in principle granted, subject to conditions.

After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Martin Boardman, seconded by Councillor Alex Hilton, and resolved 10:0:1 that Permission in principle was granted, subject to conditions.

Members noted the report of the Director of Planning and Development which set out planning appeals and decisions received between 16 May 2022 and 12 September 2022.