Agenda, decisions and minutes

Development Panel
Tuesday 24th July, 2018 1.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Allerdale House. View directions

Contact: Dean Devine  01900 702502

Items
No. Item

104.

Minutes

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2018.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2018 were signed a correct record.

105.

Declaration of Interests

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.

Minutes:

None declared.

106.

Questions

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.

Minutes:

None received.

The Planning Implementation Manager made the following statement:

“The following items 5, 6 and 7 on the agenda are all applications that either propose a new retail store on Low Road in Cockermouth or seek the continued trading of an existing retail store without compliance with conditions.

 

Each application should be considered on its own merits and in accordance with the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. That is to say, the 1999 Local Plan settlement limits and the 2014 Local Plan Part 1 have primacy in the decision making process but the Panel may wish to afford weight to other material considerations such as the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

 

Members will see from the respective officer’s reports that such a weighting process of development plan policy and other material considerations has been undertaken.

 

Members will also note that G L Hearn was instructed by the Council to undertake a peer review of the assessments undertaken by the applicants, specifically in relation to retail impact. The peer review explicitly looked at different scenarios including where all three applications are granted and implemented. The Review also assessed the implications of the Lidl store on the old WCF site being open.

 

This approach has been taken to ensure the robustness of the Panel’s resolutions, as the existence of adjoining applications is a material consideration, specifically in relation to cumulative impact.

 

Therefore, for the application 2/2018/0051, which is for the variation to the goods sold from the mezzanine in the existing store, your resolution taken for the preceding application 2/2018/0050, will affect the weight you afford to that application. That is to say, if you resolve to grant permission for the variance to the main store’s trading, more weight should be afforded to this proposal than if it was merely an application pre-Panel consideration. However, you may determine that the change in weight is not material to your overall consideration. The same considerations should apply when you come to consider the proposal for the new store, 2/2018/0070, with weight being afforded to the preceding applications for the existing store’s proposed variations the weight being dependent on your resolutions.

 

The officers’ recommendations for all the applications is to approve subject to conditions but, as the application 2/2018/0070 is for a new retail store, the overall balance of considerations is different with matters such as setting of designated heritage assets being material. Therefore, if there is a consistent approach taken to considerations common to all three applications, it is still possible to arrive at different conclusions for the existing and new stores.

 

What is important is that, if members resolve to grant one site and refuse the other, then the reasoning for the difference is made very clear.

 

Finally, I have received a query as to why applications 2/2018/50 and 51 relating to the existing store precede 2/2018/0070 for the new store on the agenda. This is simply because applications 50 and 51 were received valid first.“

107.

2/2018/0050 - Application to vary condition 3 of planning application 2/1998/0862 - Lakes Home Centre, Low Road, Cockermouth pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

Representations

 

Paul Carr spoke in objection to the application.

 

Councillor Joan Ellis, Ward Councillor for Christchurch Cockermouth spoke against the application.

 

Application

 

The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval subject to conditions. Condition 4 in the report was no longer recommended.

 

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

 

  • Retail impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre:

 

Supporting retail statement submitted with the application was independently evaluated by a retail consultant commissioned by the Council. It is considered the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the vitality or viability of the town centre

 

  • Variation to the types of goods allowed to be sold:

 

The variation of the goods to generic “convenience“ and “comparison” good types was included as part of the overall retail impact with no adverse impact on the vitality or viability of the town centre

 

  • Town centre viability:

 

An acceptable sequential assessment has been provided which concludes that those sites in closer proximity to the town centre are neither suitable and/or available. The fact that the site operates as an existing retail store is a material consideration.

 

  • Highway impact:

 

The Highways Authority has raised no objection.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned and then reconvened.

 

Following member discussion, Councillor M Grainger moved that the application be approved as per the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor B Miskelly.

 

A vote was taken on the motion for approval as per the officer’s recommendation. 6 voted in favour, 4 voted against and 1 abstained from voting. The motion was carried.

 

Resolution

 

Approve subject to conditions

 

Conditions

 

  1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans:

96059-00 Location Plan

Planting Layout Part 1

98059-01 Planting Layout Part 2

98059-01B Site Layout

Amendment Letter 01/02/99

98059-0 Elevations Sheet 1 of 2 Option 4 (amended plan received 01/02/99)

98059-0 Elevations Sheet 2 of 2 Option 4 (amended plan received 01/02/99)

Amendment Letter 26/02/99

98059-09P Drainage Layout Part 1 of 2 (amended plan received 26/02/99)

East Elevation (amended plan received 26/02/99)

 

Plans received relating to a condition application:

98059-10A Site, Planting and Drainage Layout Part 2 of 2 (Drainage Omitted) (received 19/04/99)

98059-11C Ground Floor Plan (received 19/04/99)

98059-12B Elevations Sheet 1 of 2 (received 19/04/99)

98059-13D Elevations Sheet 2 of 2 (received 19/04/99)

98059-14C Sections (received 19/04/99)

98059-16A Mezzanine Floor Plan (received 19/04/99)

 

Reason: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and any material and non-material alterations to the scheme are properly considered.

 

  1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no development shall be erected and no trees, bushes or other plants shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splays (providing clear visibility of 9.0 metres x 120.0 metres measured down the centre of the access road and the near-side channel line of the major road) which obstruct the approved visibility splays.

 

Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of construction in the interest of public safety.

 

  1. The approved access and or parking provision implemented at the site shall be retained and be capable of use at all times and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that proper access and parking provision is made and retained for use in relation to the development.

 

  1. All areas used for the storage, handling, loading and unloading of fuels, oils, chemicals, or effluents must have an impermeable base, to prevent discharge of contaminated drainage or accidental spillages to underground strata or surface waters.

 

Reason: To prevent water pollution.

 

  1. Prior to the commencement of any convenience shopping at the site, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Local Planning Authority for their approval a Travel Plan which shall identify the measures that will be undertaken by the developer to encourage the achievement of a modal shift away from the use of private cars to visit the development to sustainable transport modes and safeguard the existing car parking facilities at the site. The convenience retail use shall not commence until the Travel Plan has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the measures identified in the Travel Plan shall be implemented by the developer within 12 months of the development opening for business, and retained at all times thereafter.

 

Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives in compliance with Policies S2 and S22 of the Allerdale local Plan.

 

  1. The retail sales area of the ground floor shall not exceed 1826 sq m and of that sales area there shall not be more than 546 sq m (30%) available for the sale and display of convenience goods. The area available for the sale and display of comparison goods shall not exceed 1280 sq m (70%).

 

Reason: In order to safeguard the vitality and viability of the existing town centre and other retail units, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S16 and DM8 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

108.

2/2018/0051 - Application to vary condition 2 on application 2/2008/0533 - Lakes Home Centre, Low Road, Cockermouth pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

Representations

 

Paul Carr spoke in objection to the application.

 

Councillor Joan Ellis, Ward Councillor for Christchurch Cockermouth spoke against the application.

 

Application

 

The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval subject to conditions.

 

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

 

  • Retail impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre:

 

Supporting retail statement submitted with the application was independently evaluated by a retail consultant commissioned by the Council. It is considered the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the vitality or viability of the town centre

 

  • Variation to the types of goods allowed to be sold:

 

The variation of the goods to generic “convenience“ and “comparison” good types was included as part of the overall retail impact with no adverse impact on the vitality or viability of the town centre

 

  • Town centre viability:

 

An acceptable sequential assessment has been provided which concludes that those sites in closer proximity to the town centre are neither suitable and/or available. The fact that the site operates as an existing retail store is a material consideration.

 

  • Highway impact:

 

The Highways Authority has raised no objection.

 

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

 

Following discussion, Councillor M Grainger moved that the application be approved as per the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor B Pegram.

 

A vote was taken on the motion for approval as per the officer’s recommendation. 6 voted in favour, 4 voted against and 1 abstained from voting. The motion was carried.

 

Resolution

 

Approve subject to conditions

 

Conditions

 

  1. The retail sales area of the mezzanine shall not exceed 874sq m and of that sales area there shall not be more than 262 sq m (30%) available for the sale and display of convenience goods. The area available for the sale and display of comparison goods shall not exceed 612 sq m (70%).

 

Reason: In order to safeguard the vitality and viability of the existing town centre and other retail units, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S16 and DM8 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

 

  1. The change of goods sold as hereby permitted shall not commence until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and shall be implemented within 12 months of being brought into use.

 

Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives in accordance with Policy S22 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2014.

 

  1. Upon commencement of the change of goods hereby approved, an annual report reviewing the effectiveness of the Travel Plan associated with that change and including any necessary amendments or measures, as well as timing for their implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any amendments hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timescales.

 

Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives from the operational use of the site in accordance with Policy S22 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2014.

 

The meeting adjourned and then reconvened.

109.

2/2018/0070 - Hybrid application - Erection of retail unit (Class A1) with external garden centre (Full Application), Employment unit (Class B1, B2, and B8) (Outline Application with details of appearance reserved), including access, parking, landscaping and associated works - Land at Low Road, Cockermouth pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Minutes:

Representations

 

Gary Whetton, Councillor Joan Ellis on behalf of Julian Simpson, David Siddall, Hilary Tattershall, Mr Chippindale and Paul Carr spoke in objection to the application.

 

Councillor Alan Tyson spoke against the application on behalf of Cockermouth Town Council.

 

Councillor Joan Ellis, Ward Councillor for Christchurch Cockermouth spoke against the application.

 

Jeremy Williams, the agent for the application spoke in support.

 

Application

 

The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval subject to conditions and the signing of a s106 agreement to secure financial sums for the monitoring of a Travel Plan and the implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order if necessary.

 

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

 

  • Principle of the development:

 

Development of the scale proposed in general terms is considered to be appropriate in terms of the functional role of Cockermouth as a key service town within the settlement hierarchy.

 

Redevelopment of the eastern part of the site which has previously been developed would accord with Policies S3 and S30 for the re-use of previously developed land.

 

The proposed uses would be generally compatible with existing commercial and residential development to the east.

 

  • Loss of employment allocation:

 

Following external review of the marketing exercise undertaken to date for the existing employment allocation, it is considered that the site has been marketed appropriately and for a reasonable period. The criteria of Policy DM3 for the release of allocated employment sites is considered to be met and the proposed mixed use scheme is the next sequentially preferable option.

 

  • Town centre viability:

 

An acceptable sequential assessment has been provided which concludes that those sites in closer proximity to the town centre are neither suitable and/or available.

 

An impact assessment has been provided by the applicant for the revised retail scheme and this has been reviewed on behalf of the Council by external consultants. This review concludes that the proposal, either individually or cumulatively with the consented development of WCF/Lidl and the proposed changes to the types of goods sold at the adjacent Lakes Home Centre, would not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Cockermouth town centre principally, or other centres in the locality.

 

  • Visual impact/loss of trees:

 

The proposal would result in a significant change overall in the appearance of the site, particularly the removal of trees, and would extend the built form of the town to the west by approx. 300m. However, it must be borne in mind that at least part of the site is allocated for development and the built form of the town has been extended west through the construction of housing at The Laureates. The development as proposed reflects the layout of retail and commercial development existing to the east. On balance, therefore, the visual impacts of the proposal are considered to be suitably mitigated by the proposed landscaping scheme and the proposal is therefore considered acceptable with regards to relevant policies of the Allerdale Local Plan.

 

  • Flood risk:

 

Officers are satisfied that sufficient attempts have been made to consider sequentially preferable sites in relation to flood risk. Whilst some sites within Flood Zone 1 were identified, these were considered to be in locations unsuitable for retail development.

 

The Local Lead Flood Authority has raised no objection in relation to flood risk, subject to conditions.

 

  • Highway impact:

 

The Highways Authority has raised no objection to the creation of a new access off Low Road to serve the proposal, utilising the existing service road at the Lakes Home Centre for deliveries etc. Whilst concerns were initially raised relating to the level of car parking proposed, following the provision of additional information relating to the garden centre and by restricting the floor area of the proposed employment unit for (should it be utilised for a B1 use), these objections have been withdrawn and the level of parking provision is considered to be acceptable.

 

Albeit an edge of centre, the site is considered to be accessible by a range of options, other than the private car and therefore sustainable. Financial contributions are required relating to Travel Plan monitoring and the creation of a Traffic Regulation Order for Low Road to restrict parking, should this become necessary in the future.

 

  • Heritage:

 

The proposal lies opposite a Grade II listed building, The Fitz, and within close proximity to the Papcastle and Cockermouth conservation areas. The significance of these assets has been considered and the likely impact of the proposal on this significance. It is considered that the proposal will result in harm to the setting of these heritage assets which is considered to be less than substantial. The public benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh this harm, when applying the importance and special weight given to the preservation of the setting of listed buildings and conservations by s66 and s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

 

  • Ecology:

 

The application has been subject to an Appropriate Assessment of Effects for the river Derwent SAC/SSSI. Subject to a number of conditions including those for preventing pollution to the river Derwent, for the protection of nesting birds and the control of Himalayan Balsam, the ecological implications are considered to be acceptable.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned and then reconvened.

 

Councillor N Cockburn moved that the application be refused on the following grounds:

 

  1. The local planning authority considers that the proposal would result in the loss of saved employment allocation EM2 to the detriment of the current and future needs of the spatial strategy and growth for Cockermouth as a key service centre, contrary to Policies S3, DM3 and S12 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted 2014.

 

  1. The proposal would result in the loss of existing trees protected under Tree Preservation Order No.9 of 2017, Low Road, Cockermouth to the detriment of the visual amenities and character of the locality and the approach to the town centre, contrary to Policies S4, S32, S33 and DM17 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted 2014.

 

The motion for refusal was seconded by Councillor T Annison.

 

A vote was taken on the motion for refusal. 7 voted in favour and 4 voted against. The motion was carried.

 

Councillor M Jenkinson asked for it to be noted that he considered the marketing exercise to be flawed given the structure of land ownership and the relationship with the agent conducting that exercise.

 

The Head of Place Development responded that an independent company had carried out the exercise.

 

Decision

 

Refused

 

Reasons for refusal

 

  1. The local planning authority considers that the proposal would result in the loss of saved employment allocation EM2 to the detriment of the current and future needs of the spatial strategy and growth for Cockermouth as a key service centre, contrary to Policies S3, DM3 and S12 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted 2014.

 

  1. The proposal would result in the loss of existing trees protected under Tree Preservation Order No.9 of 2017, Low Road, Cockermouth to the detriment of the visual amenities and character of the locality and the approach to the town centre, contrary to Policies S4, S32, S33 and DM17 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Adopted 2014.

110.

2/2018/0124 - Works to existing farm track to create a temporary site to compound access road to be in use until the end of April 2019 - Development at Printfield Site, King Street, Wigton pdf icon PDF 692 KB

Minutes:

Representations

 

Councillor Alan Pitcher spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Alan Fell.

 

Councillor Alan Pitcher, Ward Councillor for Wigton spoke against the application.

 

Application

 

The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval subject to conditions.

 

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

 

  • Principle:

 

Temporary haul route considered acceptable.

 

  • Residential amenity:

 

No significant effects on amenity.

 

  • Flood risk:

 

Mitigation measures to reduce flood risk are considered to be acceptable in reducing the flood risk to residential properties.

 

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

 

Councillor P Bales moved that the application be approved as per the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor P Tibble.

 

A vote was taken on the motion for approval as per the officer’s recommendation. 9 voted in favour and 2 voted against. The motion was carried.

 

Resolution

 

Approved subject to conditions

 

Conditions

 

  1. This permission is limited to the period expiring on 30 April 2019. Immediately on the expiry of that period the use hereby permitted shall cease and the land reinstated in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 6 weeks from the date of this permission.

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of temporary construction in the interests of highway safety and the restoration of the site (including ensuring there is no increase in flood risk) in compliance with S29 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.

 

  1. The mitigation measures outlined within Chapter 4 and Appendix D of the Flood Risk Assessment RO/17279.1 Dated March 2018 Version 2 shall be carried out within 4 weeks from the date of this permission and thereafter retained for the lifetime of the development.

 

Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S2 and S29 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.