Agenda, decisions and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2018 were signed as a correct record.

Councillors/Staff to give notice of any disclosable pecuniary interest, other registrable interest or any other interest and the nature of that interest relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the adopted Code of Conduct.

None declared.

To answer questions from Councillors and members of the public – submitted in writing or by electronic mail no later than 5.00pm, 2 working days before the meeting.

None received.

http://planning.allerdale.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=166592

Representations

Chris Austin spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor Peter Kendall spoke on behalf of Maryport Town Council in objection to the application.

Application

The Principal Planning Officer recommended refusal.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report as follows:

• Principle of Development

Policy S12 seeks to protect existing employment sites until reviewed through the site allocation process which has not be undertaken to date. Furthermore, Policy DM3 protects existing and allocated employment sites against non-employment uses to help ensure that there is a sufficient supply of employment land to meet the areas economic development requirements over the plan period. From the information that has been submitted with the application the applicant has not considered adequately alternative uses prior to the development of the site for housing. Officers consider the principle of developing the site for housing is contrary to Policy S12 and DM3 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

• Amenity

Officers consider in the absence of layout the applicant has not demonstrated that a satisfactory standard of residential amenity for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings can be achieved. Concern is also raised that the proposed housing development may prejudice the compatibility and delivery of existing and future B2 industrial land uses within the neighbouring industrial estates. The proposal is considered contrary to Policy S2, S4, S32 and DM14 Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014 and NPPF.

• Access

Officers are satisfied that an acceptable form of access(s) can be achieved at the site.

• Flood Risk and Drainage

The submitted FRA concludes that the area is not at risk of flooding and the drainage scheme is acceptable.

• Ecology

The submitted Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey considered the impact of demolishing the 3 buildings on site and all other ecological species. Whist Building 1 and 3 were assessed as having negligible bat roost potential, Building 2 was assessed as having low bat roost potential. A further Bat Survey showed no signs of bats emerging from the Building and the loss of this building will have no potential impact on roasting bats. The proposal is in accordance with Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

Members noted the representations received in respect of the application, the main grounds of which were set out in the report. Members also noted additional comments received from Environmental Health with regard to noise and a further letter of objection from a neighbour of the property.

Councillor N Cockburn moved that the application be refused as per the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor P Tibble.

A vote was taken on the motion. The vote in favour of refusal was unanimous. The motion was carried.

Decision

Refused

Reasons

1. The proposal will result in the loss of an existing employment site under Part 1 of the Allerdale Local Plan. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal complies with Policy S12 and DM3 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014 and Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The Local Planning Authority consider in the absence of layout insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate a satisfactory standard of residential amenity can be achieved for the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings The proposed residential development would potentially prejudice the operation of existing and future B2 industrial land uses within the neighbouring industrial estate contrary to Policy S2, S4 and S32 and the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 17, 58, 61, 109, 122 and 123.

http://planning.allerdale.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=174990

Representations

The applicant’s representative, Ken Thompson spoke in support of the application.

Application

The Principal Planning Officer recommended refusal.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report as follows:

• Principle of Development

The application site is located in the open countryside outside any defined settlement limit. The information provided has not demonstrated that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near to their place of work to meet the functional requirements of the business.

The Local Planning Authority considers the proposed dwelling constitutes an inappropriate, non-essential form of residential development in the open countryside outside of the defined settlement limits and would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Policies S3 and DM2 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted July 2014 and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Members noted the representations received in respect of the application, the main grounds of which were set out in the report.

Councillor M Grainger moved that the application be approved on the grounds that the applicant’s representative had made a case proving that there was an essential need for the proposed dwelling in order to meet the needs of the applicant’s business and that planning conditions be delegated to officers including a condition restricting the occupancy of the dwelling to the associated business or other rural worker. This was seconded by Councillor R Munby.

A vote was taken on the motion. 7 voted in favour and 3 against. The motion was carried.

Decision

Approved